Native American Essay

Contact between native Americans and Europeans between the founding of Jamestown (1607) and the outbreak of the American revolution (1776) constituted a continuous cultural revolution for native people.



This essay will show how the European involvement change the Native American way of life. I will use many relevant sources to write this paper. I used the book, The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson and a documentary style movie that we watched in class. I will also use various websites for some information and to reinforce what I say.
European involvement in the lives of the Native Americans changed greatly but also the ideas of the Native Americans that they held sacred stayed the same. No amount of force could stop the Native Americans change what they believed in. The daily life of the Native American would never be the same again after the Europeans settled. They were just too different and brought great things with them that the Native Americans have never saw before.
War was a big influencing factor that changed the Native American's way of life. The first notable war was the Powhatan Confederacy. The war started in 1622 and ended in 1644. At first the settlers fought the indians. As time went on the settlers realized what a great asset the indians were. As time went on there were indians fighting indians and settlers fighting settlers. This was apparent in the French-Indian war. Fort Necessity was the first battle of the war. The Americans wanted control of the colonies but the French just wanted to establish trade. Many of the indians sided with the French. The Delaware and the Shawnee sided with the French and even though the Six Nations were considered neutral many of them sided with the French. At the end of the war the British took Fort Dusquene with the help of the indians. With this victory the British won the war and took most of the land east of the Mississippi. Native Americans played an important role in the wars that shaped America. Without them the French would have never taken Fort Necessity and the British would have never taken Fort Dusquene. The French-Indian war would have probaby not even started if the "half-king" did not scalp those Frenchman. If George Washington would have never taken the blame than there would not have been a war.
The native american culture changed dramatically from before settlers arrived until after they settled. There was no chance that the indians wouldn't have made contact with the settlers. If there is something new and wonderful than you are going to want it. The insians were interested in the goods that the settlers brought over. These new goods made life easier. No longer would they have to hunt a rabbit with a bow and arrow. They could not help using these new tools. Bronze was many times more efficient than stone was. The indians quickly took on to the new ways. During the French-Indian war they used guns to fight which saved many indians that would have died if they used their older weapons. The indians somewhat controlled the Europeans. They signed a treaty with the British yet they were still trading with the French. They just wanted to get the best goods from each of the settlements.
During the first years that the Europeans were in interaction with the Native Americans the indian population decreased greatly. The population cut down by ninety percent because of the European diseases that ravaged the New World. In the matter of four years between 1347 and 1351 the population of Europe was cut down by one-third. Disease was prevalent in oher areas also. The main killer was smallpox. Early people coined the phrase "Columbian Exchange" to describe the passing of deadly diseases. Even though disease killed many Indians there was still another killer. Massacre was a big killer. It was not close as how many died of disease but many people were still killed. This rapid depopulation affeceted the Native Americans greatly. They had fewer warriors and fewer farmers.
There were some things that did not change during the European settlement. Their religion ultimately stayed the same. Relgion usually does not change with the immigration of new people. Their were some people that did convert. Many other things stayed intact. The spirtuality did not suffer. They still had their religous customs that they hold sacred. Even though the Europeans were much different the indians still consulted the elder women to make decisions. They still spoke the same language also. Even today some Native Americans follow the ways of their forefathers. The reason that their language and customs still hold true today is that Native Americans hold their ways sacred and nothing can change that.
Even though many things changed for the Native Americans many things did not. The Europeans made a big impact on the Native Americans but also the Native Americans made a big impact on the settlers. Where would we be today without the indians. We as a people would have not survived. The first settlers that landed at Jamestown would not have made it past the winter if it was not for the Native Americans.

The Last Judgement: Michelangelo

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Lastjudgement.jpg

St. Barthalomew

Essay #1 Semester 2

Can a civilization advance/develop living in cyclical time?

Abstract:
The text below will answer the question, can a civilization advance/ develop living in cyclical time? I will use many resources to write this piece. I will use all of our class discussions, The Earth Shall Weep by James Wilson, and handouts that I have acquired. I also will use various websites.

The best explanation of cyclical time is that time goes in cycles. Every so many years time wil repeat itself. If you think like the Ancient Chinese than time repeats itself every twelve years. If there is a war this year than twelve years later than there must be a war twelve years later. Cyclicalt time differs linear time because linear time never repeats itself, it always is heading in a straight line. The chinese use the moon and jupiter to plot their twelve year cycle. They have observed that people that are born in the same lunar year will have similar traits and characteristics. That is why chniese children are born in the "year of the sheep" or the "year of the monkey".
Many ancient civiliaztions used cyclical time. Among the dozens there were the Incans, mayans, and the ancient greeks. The native americans also used cyclical time. History shows that the native american were developed. Maybe not as developed as Britain at the time but they were developed nonetheless. They had there own religion, houses, and a form of government. That does seem developed enough. As James Wilson said in his book The Earth Shall Weep, When the settlers arrived there were already forms for houses. That is because the native americans had already built houses there. The Greeks also lived in cyclical time. Greece was one of the most advanced civilizations of their time. Many things could not be done without the inventions and innovations of the ancient greeks. Durung the time of ancient greece Archimedes invented the fulcrum and lever. Just think of how life would be without the lever. Also an ancient greek invented the steam engine. Without the engine life would be much harder. Ancient Greece was very advanced and powerful.
The native american civilization might have not been advanced but they were highly developed. They did this when they were split up within the country. They would have innovated much faster if they were united. Another reason the native americans did not advance is because they did not know of anything different. They were happy with what they had. Life is much simpler without technology.

Sources:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Greeks.htm
http://www.ichingwisdom.com/IChingWisdom/zodiac.html

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/1300.shtml

Classroom Discussions

Midterm essay

Midterm Essay Justin Hughes

Abstract

Paragraph by paragraph I will answer the question, "is it the trend of Western History to cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means"? I will tie in all of the revolutions into one idea. I will bring in many sources including Medici Money by Tim Parks, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes, and The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman.

Essay

It is the trend of western history to “cultivate a skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means”. This question might be able to be answered in one word but it takes a lot of background knowledge and research to come to this conclusion.

The first part of the question is “cultivate a skeptical faith.” This means to bring about a faith that could about doubt in the minds of the citizens. (Faith ) People would doubt this faith. With every new faith there will be more than enough skeptics. The second part of the question is to “avoid dogma”. This basically means “to avoid an established opinion." (2) This was true before the French revolution. Many people in France did what the Church said and that is wrong. To avoid this is to think for your self, or in other words, have humanistic qualities. Humanism changed the people of the time thought. The third part of the question is to “listen and watch well”. What this means is that you must learn from others. Watch and listen what others are doing so you will not make the same mistakes. This goes back to the book “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations”. In chapter 18 it explains how other countries (other than Britain) headed into the industrial revolution. It is not like the other countries did it on their own. They learned from Britain’s mistakes. There is no use reinventing the wheel. The last part of the question is “try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means”. This goes back to the saying “it is better to chose means than to define the ends”. Is it the trend of western history to try to clarify what the end product or impact is going to be, or is it the trend to justify the ways to get to that end product. (The means)

The first part of the question is to “cultivate a skeptical faith.” This is what leads to revolution. From the French Revolution to the Flattening of the World. It all starts with one person, or one group that “cultivates” a new idea. Faith does not have to be pertaining to religion. It can be a “complete trust”. (3) Starting with the French Revolution, there was that one group, the humanists, which had a “skeptical faith.” At first many people doubted straying away from the Church. It was forbidden. Once people found out that they could think for themselves, this new faith was not doubted as much. This was the same in “Medici Money”. This new banking was neither a sin nor was it morally wrong. But this is what the Church told everyone. Even though they were also benefiting from this new form of banking. At first people were skeptics, but look at us now, we all use modern banking and it never crossed our minds that maybe back in the time before this revolution that what we are doing would have been a sin in the eyes of the Church. Even today people are skeptical of new ideas. In “the World is Flat” it explains that in the beginning people were skeptical of the “all mysterious Internet”. Now people use the Internet everyday without thinking of how anyone could be skeptical of this wonderful idea. The industrial revolution was a “skeptical faith”. Many people around the world were set in their ideas of how things are supposed to be. They never thought of why you would give up quality for quickness. And the only question to that question is capital. At the end of chapter 18 of “the Wealth and Poverty of Nations” many countries embraced the industrial revolution. What they learned is that embracing some of these “skeptical faiths”, pays off in the end. It just goes to show you that with every new substantial idea there will be people skeptical of the idea but will learn to live with it once they learn the “greater good” that this idea is bringing about.

The second part of the question is it “the trend of Western History to avoid dogma.” Dogma, which has already been explained, is an established opinion. The biggest example is the reformation and humanism. This all happened during the French Revolution. The Church established an opinion that all were supposed to live by and agree with. Usually when a country or civilization does not avoid dogma, there is going to be a change at one time or another. People do not like being told what to think and how to act. This does not bode well with the country’s government. During the days when humanism was just starting, people were shackled by the ideas of the Church. Once the idea of humanism was fully instilled in the minds of the general public then there was no turning back. This is why the Church tried to discourage change. Most importantly the increase of rights. When Calvin wrote his 95 theses the Church tried to censor him but that was not going to happen. In the mind of the humanist you should be able to criticize even the common religion of the state much less its governing power. (Reformation Slideshow) In “Medici Money” it explains that usury was a quote, “unholy” thing to do. The modern banker of the time saw that you could make a lot more money by committing this small sin. If someone thinks that they can do something quicker, more efficient, or more lucrative then they are going to do it. Even though it may be a sin. In their eyes and in the eyes of the humanist, it was not such a sin. To have a functional and relatively peaceful country or society you need to avoid dogma. People should not have to abide by opinions of the state just because that’s what they think. That is why when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution they wrote the Bill of Rights. This is so people would have the right to religion and other rights. In other words they learned from the British and French to avoid dogma at the beginning and not have a revolt or something of that manner.

The third part of the question is to “listen and watch well.” It is imperative that you learn from others mistakes if you want to get ahead in this world. If you don’t you will be a grey blob in the mass of all the other grey blobs that do not observe. This concept shows through during the industrial revolution. As Britain was at the forefront of technology during this time period countries like France, Germany, and the United States were ready to pounce when the time was right. While Britain was making mistakes and fixing them the aforementioned countries were listening and watching well. As chapter 18 in “the Wealth and Poverty of Nations” goes on to say that after Britain did all of the “grunt work” these other countries could come in and start at the same level as Britain. Also in chapter 17 there is a thought from Alexander Gerschenkron. He basically explains that there is no difference in whether to be first or come along later when it comes to industrialization. He also has a good point; the way to get ahead in life is to gain the “ability to leap the gap of knowledge and practice separating the backward economy from the advanced.” (p275, pp4) What this basically means is that to get ahead in life you need to “leap the gap of knowledge” or in other words you need to learn from others rather than taking the time to learn it yourself. Just think, what is quicker, sitting through an hour and twenty minute class or getting notes from the class and reading them?

The fourth and final part of the question is to “try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means.” To clarify and define ends is to set a long term goal for your self or on a much broader scale, the country. Without long term goals a country has no direction what so ever. Long term goals help keep you on track of the thing you really want. During the industrial revolution the countries like Germany, France, and the United States had goals to industrialize even if they were subconscious goals they are still what drove countries and leaders to industrialize. They knew that if they reached their goal of industrialization then there would be a bigger payoff in the end which was a better functioning economy and trade deals with many countries. The second part to this section of the question is that is it better to chose means. Means is how a country gets to their long term outcome. Some of the means of industrialization were to set up trading routes across the world and to learn from others to produce a better functioning economy.

It is the mindset of the typical American the question at hand goes through their mind everyday, even if they don't know it. They don't know it but, everyday this American tries to avoid dogma or watches and listens. All of the worlds greatest changes have influenced this person's thinking and they don't even know it. The aspect of humanism has influenced this American to think for him/herself. The aspect of industrialization has made this American watch as others do and fix mistakes. It is basic problem solving.

Mental or Physical: That is the question

Industrial Revolution Essay


The Industrial revolution was a time of change, as all revolutions are. The Industrial revolution marked a change in how people do business and make goods all over the world. What would the world be without the engine. Without factories products would be in short supply and probably quite expensive. With this knowledge it tells you that the industrial revolution had to be a physical change not a mental change. Without machines there would have not been a revolution. If it were mental then these great minds would have been just thinking of these machines and not putting them to good use and creating machines that would revolutionize the world.
The main point that needs to be stressed is that the industrial revolution was made by the inventions of the time. Some of the inventions of the time were the spinning jenny, the water loom, and the steam engine. The big new invention was the steam engine. The steam engine alone could have caused the industrial revolution. Many sources state in one way or another that it was the machines that did the revolutionizing and not the ideas of the time. Merriam Webster states that the industrial revolution was "a rapid major change in an economy (as in England in the late 18th century) marked by the general introduction of power-driven machinery or by an important change in the prevailing types and methods of use of such machines". Also In the book, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, the authors goes on to explain what the three major "substitutions" of the revolution. They were, the substitution of machines for human skill, the substitution of inanimate for animate sources of power (the major machine was the engine), and the use of new and more abundant raw materials. These substitutions increased productivity and in turn created more income for the working man.
Yes some people may argue that it was the ideas that led to the inventions which in turn led to the revolution but, the cause of arevolution has to be direct yet the ideas were indirect and is a very small cause. It is somewhat grasping at straws. These people that invented these revolutionizing inventions were not some great philosophers or even inventors. They invented them to make their way of life easier and their businesses more productive. Take Thomas Newcomen, he was an ironmonger ( a retailer of iron goods), not some rich big shot yet he has been called the father of the industrial revolution for the introduction of the first steam power plant. That just goes to show you that it does not take a inventor to invent something great.

Abstract

The basis of my paper is that it was more of a physical revolution when it comes to the industrial revolution. It was actually the inventions that formed the revolution and not the ideas or even the people. I have used many sources in my paper including Merriam Webster, The wealth and Poverty of Nations written by David S. Landes, and also some information from wikipedia.

Local History: North Newport

Justin Hughes

Ms. Lind/ Mr. Viles

Honors English/ History 10

1/14

History of North Newport: A simple farming community

This report will not only be a history of Newport Maine but will also show how the farming industry grew in small towns and what the people were like during these times. Without Newport there would not be a North Newport. North Newport sits on the outer fringes of Newport, neighboring the community of Stetson. North Newport may not be the home of influential businessmen but it is rich with cultural history and is a quaint little community.

On June 14, 1800 John Hubbard bought the township of Newport and other surrounding towns. He bought nearly 33,147 acres for only 5,635 dollars, which is only about seventeen cents per acre. Land has inflated so much since then. The year was 1807 and it was springtime in Maine. John Ireland and his wife and children arrived in what was then known as East Pond Plantation. They came from Bloomfield, which is now the Skowhegan area. A year earlier John, his brother Joseph, Elam Pratt, and Benjamin Eaton came to Newport to build a cabin in which his family could stay in the following year. For the next six years or so the town developed and the population had nearly grown to one hundred people. In 1814 Newport officially became a town. After the town was incorporated, the townspeople needed some sort of local government. Samuel Hayden became the selectman of North Newport. John Ireland and Daniel Bicknell were put onto the committee to lay out roads and school districts. On March 6, 1815 the town was divided into six different school districts. On May 20, 1816 it was a big day for the whole state of Maine but on this day the town voted in favor of separating from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This history is just from the settlement of the town up to the actual incorporation of the town.

The life of a settler in the early days was much different than than the life of an average person today. Imagine a life without even the simple luxury of running water. Many settlers then were farmers. Many people that live in North Newport now are somehow connected to the surrounding farms. The first house of the settlement which was owned be Deacon Daniel Ireland, was a one floor simply built cabin. Before John Ireland, came his land was completely covered in trees. Before he could start building his cabin he had to clear land. The floor was dirt and the walls were not insulated. The small cabin was lived in by nearly eleven people. All of the children except the little ones slept in the loft on straw mats. The cabin was heated by a fire that was surrounded by stones. Their heating fire was also used for cooking. The diet of the settlers usually consisted of stew. The stew did not usually consist of meat unless it could be hunted. The livestock was used for farming. The whole family worked Monday through Saturday and the summer and fall were devoted to tending and farming the fields. The women stayed indoors and tended to the baby if they had one and also they did chores like cleaning or cooking. Men tended the farm and did things around the cabin. Children went to school but after they had their chores. Children usually went to school until they were twelve or thirteen unless their parents would send them into the village of Newport. In that time if you did not grow it or make it yourself than you did not have it. There were not any stores in North Newport where you can just buy anything you need, nor are there any stores even today.

Schooling was big on the minds of the settlers. The first school in North Newport was built on Route 222. This was the only school of the community and one teacher by the name of Amanda Barker taught fifty-two students. Not long after, this school was no longer used and a new school was built on the Rutland Road. This was called the Rutland Road School. After this two other schools were established. One was built on Route 222 not far from the Stetson town line. This school was called the Hubbard School. The other was on the corner of Route 222 and the road I now live on which is Durham Bridge Road. The school was called the Coburn Corner School. All three of these schools were one room classrooms taught by one teacher. During the winter they were heated by a woodstove in the center of the room. Only grades one through eight went to these schools. If you wanted to go to high school then you had to go into the “Village of Newport”. In 1942 these schools were closed and students were bussed into town.

Before the time of churches in Newport the two faiths (the Baptists and Christians) met in the two school houses. The Baptists met in the Coburn Corner School and the Christians met in the Hubbard School. This was an inadequate place for a church. They even had to put planks across the seats. There were two main churches of North Newport. There was the Baptist Church and the Christian Church. The Baptist church was created on June 23, 1817. Some notable members of the church were Joseph Ireland, John Ireland (he was also the Deacon of the church), Samuel Hayden, and Daniel Bicknell. The church met every Saturday for service. The Christian Church was created in 1852. The church services were held on Saturday also. Some members of one church attended both church services. The Christian church shows periods of time in which there were no church services. In 1950 a meeting was held to plan on building a church for both the Baptists and the Christians. The meeting place was one mile from each of the school houses. In 1857 Abiah Steward was contracted to build the meeting house for 1,000 dollars. The church was sectioned off, the Christians on the East side and the Baptists on the West side of the church. The pews were sold for ten-fifty dollars. The first pastor for the Christian church was Rev. Moses F. Davis and the first Baptist Minister was Rev. Mr. Robinson.

In 1897 the willing workers were formed. The willing workers were a group of women that gathered money for the upkeep of the church and for other needs in the town. In the 1900’s the willing workers installed a tin ceiling in the church.

Farming was a big industry in the Newport community. Many products were shipped abroad. (Abroad meaning Waterville, Bangor, and even Boston) Meat, hay, potatoes, grain, and milk were sent away to different towns such as Bangor and Waterville. Some products were even sent as far as Boston. The farming industry gave access from North Newport to Corinna. This may not be too far today, (only a couple of miles) but this gave settlers the power to ride on horse to Corinna easily. The dairy farmer in North Newport was not at all short of business. Milk was picked up at the farms, taken to Corinna, and then shipped off by train to Newport. Other than farming many people of North Newport were attracted be the Woolen Mill in Corinna. With the invention of the car it was relatively easy to get from North Newport to Corinna. Even though not everyone had a car, people did carpool. Some people lived in Corinna for a short period of time so they could work at the mill. There were three prominent farms in the North Newport Community. The Hillacre Farm was founded by Densmore Stewart Hilliker in 1910. Densmore graduated from MCI and then he moved back to North Newport. The farm was built on what is now Route 222. In a short time the farm grew to a pretty good size that could support his family. Densmore’s daughter Josephine married Keith Smith. Keith soon took over the farm. At this time they were growing potatoes and hay. In 1969 Carl Densmore Smith combined his already acquired farms in Corinna and started the Hillacre Farm. In 1985 Carl R. Smith III took over and now resides in the farm house. This is only one of the farms but the Coburn farm is now part of the Hillacre estate. The Sawyer farm in my mind is not really in North Newport. Much of North Newport is covered with farms and fields. This is why today North Newport is considered a farming community.

Native Americans once live in Newport. The first meeting of the town was brought together because the settlers feared that there was going to be an Indian attack. At the meeting subjects were what to do if the Indians attacked. Each family was to have a gun over their fireplace in case they attacked. A few days later 150 Native Americans were seen on the Stetson River. Two people were sent to find out if they intended to harm the settlers. The settlers quickly found out that the Indians were not there to harm them. The Indians were from the Penobscot tribe and were fleeing from another tribe.

North Newport may not be a town by itself but it is rich with cultural history. There is more history in this section of a town than many towns in the state. North Newport is small community and almost everyone knows everyone. In one hundred short years this community has made a lot of history. It has seen only one murder. It is all around a good place to live.

Faith Vs. Fact

Essay Fact Vs. Faith

The difference between fact vs. faith has been puzzling man for since the encyclopedic century or maybe even earlier. It is a topic that has created a lot of controversy. Religious topics always do. Faith and Fact are very much different yet they come together in a way. To me faith is what you know may not be true but believing in it anyway. To explain it better it is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Merriam Webster. Faith is kind of like a family heirloom, it was passed down to one's kids. The only reason I believe in what I do is because of my parents. If my parents were Muslim I would would be praising Allah and not God. As I grow up I think more and more for myself and do actually believe in God for myself and not just because of my parents. Faith is questioned on a constant basis but sometimes you have to believe in somethings or you will be confused beyond humanly possible. Fact is a whole different thing. To me fact is something that can be backed up by more than a few sources. Fact defined by Merriam Webster is "a piece of information presented as having objective reality". Fact is what I normally go on. I like for stuff that I believe in to be factual even if sometimes it cannot be. Fact and faith have changed substantially over time. Before anyone questioned the pope or the bible, faith was fact. Whatever was said in the bible was true and if you disputed that then you were prosecuted. Around the time of the encyclopedic century people started to question what was said in the bible. Galileo found that the universe did not revolve around the earth. Once people found that the universe actually did not revolve around the earth they started to question other things in the bible.
There are many differences between fact and faith. Fact can be backed up by any sources. Faith is not usually that factual. Usually faith is centered in one piece of text. Yes, some things in the bible can be backed up by other sources but information like the creation of man cannot be backed up. Fact and faith usually clash. Webster makes a good point "faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof". One huge topic up for debate is evolution. Fact believes in evolution and faith believes in creationism. There are many pieces of information that back up evolution but there is only one text that backs up creationism and that is the bible. Many people center their life on fact rather than faith because you can not really discriminate against fact. What is real is real and you cannot change that. Fact can be used by all countries and religions and it will still hold true. The dominant faith in an area changes from country to country and even from state to state. Science will always be at "war" with religion. Its a given that scientific fact is revolutionary but people will always have that underlying aspect of God or Allah or whatever they believe in because they have been brought up to just believe what is they know to be true.
Even though faith and fact conflict with each other in so many ways there are some similarities. Many times what is in the Bible is actually true. In many countries people only believe in their faith. So in a way faith is actually fact. In these countries there are multiple texts that back up what is said about their faith. What is said in these pieces of information may not be true in the American sense of the word but in their culture their faith is their truth.
Well this may be taboo to some people that are reading this right now but im going to come out and say it, I believe in God. I may believe in God but I also believe in evolution. I may believe in science but I need something to explain stuff that just can't be explained such as the creation of man. I am torn between two forces. One force tells me to belive in logic and one tells me to believe in faith. It is like the little angel and little devil on one's shoulder. Even though I have faith, science will always be the the driving force behind what I think and what I say.