Secret History: A critique on Society

This novel addressed issues that I originally thought were ignored during this time. Before I read this, I thought women who were adulterers were flogged and burned at the stake. Well figuratively. Imagine my surprise when one of the main characters not only cheated on her hubby, but she left him for someone else and rode off into the sunset happily ever after. That is not an ending that I would have ever anticipated. Again I thought women who were caught cheating in this era would be treated like Hester from the Scarlett Letter. Instead, Secret History challenges the male chauvinistic view that women are the property of their husbands and cannot betray their masters, and instead reveals happiness for a woman who thinks for herself and pursues happiness for herself. 


This novel also brings up the, often ignored topic of this time, slavery. The horrors of slavery were often ignored by the American public. The North wanted nothing to do with it and if it was out of their sight, it was out of their minds. The South thought of slavery as a necessary evil when trying to preserve their way of life (and to remain rich from king cotton). Secret History shows the horrors of slavery in Haiti and brings to light characters who normally were not found in many early American works (Blacks were not thought highly of and if they were presented in a novel they were often portrayed like Jim Crow). This novel challenged societies ignorance of the Black people and tried to wake up its readers by showing the reality of the slave revolts. Secret History challenged societies view on women and Blacks through the outcomes of this novel. 
                  
Even though I HATE epistolary novels, I found the theme of this novel enjoyable and helpful for insight for my other classes. 

Secret History: Haiti and the South

I am taking both Civil War and Modern France classes for my minor so I have had multiple perspectives on the slave revolts in Haïti. The following short essay on the how they affected the Antebellum South Comes from my notes from both classes that gives necessary background knowledge for Secret History.

The slave revolt in Haïti brought about both fear and panic within the American South In the South, white planters viewed the revolution as a large-scale slave revolt and feared that violence in Haïti could inspire similar revolts in the plantation South.  They then began to have stricter policies on black gatherings, and always had a white overseer in order to prevent any rebellions from rising up. There were far more blacks on the plantations in the Antebellum South than there were whites so the plantation owners feared being overrun and murdered. Another fear that the South held was the fact that Haïti had an official policy of accepting any black person who arrived on their shores as a citizen.The legislatures of Pennsylvania and South Carolina, as well as the Washington administration, sent help to the French whites of Saint-Domingue in order to help destroy the revolts and reinforce the heirarchy within Haïti. In the debate over whether theU.S.should embargo Haïti, John Taylor of South Carolina spoke for much of the popular sentiment of white people in the South. To him the Haïtian revolution was evidence for the idea that "slavery should be permanent in the United States." He argued against the idea that slavery had caused the revolution, but instead suggested that "the antislavery movement had provoked the revolt in the first place." This shows shows how white attitudes shifted in the south from one of reluctantly accepting slavery as a necessity, to one of seeing it as a fundamental aspect of southern culture and the slave-owning planter class. As the years progressed Haïti only became a bigger target for scorn among the pro-slavery factions in the south. It was taken as proof that "violence was  an inherent part of the character of blacks" due to the slaughtering of French whites, and the authoritarian rule that followed the end of the revolution - while this logical fallacy required ignoring the violent and authoritarian rule of white people over enslaved Africans, as well as its psychological effects on those Africans

Shelby's hats. Especially my pink camo one

 Everything that has been said about my hats is true. My pink camo hat symbolizes this course perfectly. The color pink and camo (two things that normally don't work) blend perfectly together. When thinking about Early American literature, I assumed that it would be propaganda about Revolutionary ideas and freedom for males. Imagine my surprise when it was mainly about women and their role in society and their strength. So I would say that the pink represents the women in society and that the camo represents their strength and contribution to society. Finally, how they can operate and have their own power in a John Deere AKA male dominated society.

The Theme of Ormond, Pineapples, and Quakers

To be honest, I bought the wrong Ormond on Amazon. It was cheaper than the books at the bookstore, and I did not realize that it was the wrong book until I was halfway through and I realized that the book was never changing its setting from Ireland to America. (I also was talking to Megan about it and she had no clue what I was talking about because she read the correct book). I have only read the first couple of chapters so I am not able to discuss the theme of Ormond as I had hoped. (I am so bummed because I wrote a Kick-a** post about theme for the other book about how obedience to the man outways the need for independence, but nope that did not happen.) 

My best friend calls me a pineapple because even though I am brunette, I have way too many blonde moments. This is me being a pineapple. I feel so stupid and  disheartened that I did that, I am not the person who does not do her out of class work. I may procrastinate a bit due to getting overwhelmed by everything, but I don't just not do the work. Anyways this post will be about the history of the Quakers and their belief system from the very beginning of the book because I just started it and probably will not be done with it until next week.

The Religious Society of Friends arose in seventeenth-century England, at a time of religious and political turmoil. There was great dissatisfaction with the established Church of England, with its legal monopoly of public worship, oppressive tithes, and corruption. Dissenting groups, including Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Puritans,etc. vied for the spiritual and political loyalties of the populace, and in the case of the first two, for control of the government. During this time of civil war, Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the puritanical revolutionaries called “roundheads,” held the title of Protector, and was the head of the government.

As a young man, George Fox, a leather worker, walked throughout England seeking someone who could guide him to authentic religious experience. He was exposed to many of the theological ideas and practices of the time, but found no satisfaction until a day in 1651 when he had a profound religious experience.

Thereafter, Fox became the leader of a loosely-knit group of traveling evangelists, some of whom were already convinced of the same truths Fox was preaching, and some of whom were convinced by him or others. The founding of Quakerism is generally given as 1652. Fox climbed a large rock ridge in northwest England, called Pendle Hill, and looking westward toward the sea, had a vision of a great people to be gathered. Soon thereafter, he preached to a large gathering at Firbank Fell, starting a wave of conversions. About half of the early Quaker leaders came from this event. Quakers wanted to live in peace but were not tolerated in places of Europe and were thought of as heretics and were thus forced to leave for the new World where they could lived the rest of their days in peace and harmony.

The main Beliefs of the Quakers (though not all of them believe all of these) are:

Baptism - Most Quakers believe that how a person lives their life is a sacrament, and that formal observances are not necessary. Quakers hold that baptism is an inward, not outward, act.

The Bible - Quakers' beliefs stress individual revelation, but the Bible is truth. All personal light must be held up to the Bible for confirmation. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible, does not contradict Himself.

Communion - Spiritual communion with God, experienced during silent meditation.

Tenet - Quakers do not have a written tenet. Instead, they hold to personal testimonies professing peace, integrity, humility, and community.

Equality - From its beginning, the Religious Society of Friends taught equality of all persons, including women. Some conservative meetings are divided over the issue of homosexuality.

Heaven, Hell - Quakers believe that God's kingdom is now, and consider heaven and hell issues for individual interpretation. Liberal Quakers hold that the question of the afterlife is a matter of speculation.

Jesus Christ - While Quakers beliefs say that God is revealed in Jesus Christ, most Friends are more concerned with emulating Jesus' life and obeying his commands than with the theology of salvation.

Sin - Unlike other Christian denominations, Quakers believe that humans are inherently good. Sin exists, but even the fallen are children of God, Who works to kindle the Light within them.

Trinity - Friends believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit, although belief in the roles each Person plays vary widely among Quakers.

Sacraments - Quakers do not practice a ritual baptism but believe that life, when lived in the example of Jesus Christ, is a sacrament. Similarly, to the Quaker, silent meditation, seeking revelation directly from God, is their form of communion.Quakers often sit in a circle or square, so people can see and be aware of each other, but no single person is raised in status above the others. Early Quakers called their buildings steeple-houses or meeting houses, not churches.Some Friends describe their faith as an "Alternative Christianity," which relies heavily on personal communion and 

 revelation from God rather than adherence to a 

 creed and doctrinal beliefs.

Columbus: The Spanish Idiot

The Novel Reuben and Rachel referenced Columbus many of times. This was  largely because this novel is about his decedents until the title characters emerge. It shows how god people have to go through the horrors of life. One of his decedents  was even kept inside a house for a year until she married the man who kept her there. (It was pretty messed up). However while all of this is going on, Columbus is shown to be  man who was revered for his "discoveries" and kindness. Well honestly Columbus was a moron. He was not the evil and deceptive man that recent historians have made him out to be, nor was he the peaceful and intelligent historical figure that we all learned about in elementary school. He was a man who wanted glory for himself and glory for his home country. He then went to the completely wrong place instead of India. He then thought that they were bettering the "Indian" people, but  instead he brought disease and cruelty to the people of Cadiz. He thought he was bringing them culture and civilization, but in his ignorance and inflated national pride, he did not even realize that they themselves had their own culture and society, and he destroyed that. He destroyed  their way of life and brought death to the native people's all while he thought he was helping them. Reuben and Rachel serves as propaganda showing Columbus to be a hero and a man to be revered. He was also used to show a story of his multiracial decedents to show what kind of a good person he was and how his stripping of his governorship was uncalled for. This was not the case, he was incompetent and a terrible leader, who was glorified for his mistakes. That was all. However I would like to make an argument (even though I know that this was not the author's intent) that because of his stupidity and his actions, his family was cursed in a way to live a life filled with the consequences of Columbus's sins. They were cursed with the generational sin of stupidity which was not broken until Rachel. (Yes I viewed most of the tragic characters as being flawed with stupidity even though they were mostly good-natured).

Emma Corbett Reviews and South Park

In this time period, anything that used the imagination was censored for fear of people thinking in a certain way. They were afraid that people would become brainwashed or something idiotic like that. The following clip from the South Park episode Scrotie Mcgroober shows how ridiculous it is to assume that literature can make someone believe that magic is real or that they are brainwashed and should kill John Lennon. (Note: The language is inappropriate at best viewer discretion is advised. TV MA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vj-hlXBhnU (watch the clip through 2;26, not very high quality)

The debate: How I've been convinced that Rachel is just like my least favorite disney character Merrida

So awhile ago, Megan and I got into a huge debate about what Disney princess fit Rachel. I was arguing that she was like Mulan or even Belle from Beauty and the Beast. Megan completely disagreed. She argued that Rachel is someone who decides her own fate. She does what is best for her and will stand up for what she believes in, (I had the same argument about Belle, but obviously I ended up conceding). Rachel is also headstrong and does not give in even when maybe it would be best if she did. After these arguments (and me having way too much of a love for Beauty and the Beast) I agreed that Rachel is like one of my least favorite Disney princesses, Merrida. Seems appropriate considering that I HATED this novel.  Why do I hate Merrida? Although she loves her family, she messes up royally because she is selfish and cannot sacrifice any of her happiness for the good of others. The movie was flawed and had many plot holes that made 0 sense. Just like this book. Rachel is a little softer than the abrasive Merrida and is more duty bound than Merrida is, but the same rules apply. At least Rachel stands up for her father when the man who is to be her husband ridicules Rachel's father. Merrida probably would have turned the entire thing into an argument about her, but she would have stood up for her father (but of course not her mother because she thinks her mother is the worst person in the world so she turns her into a bear!)

Reuben and Rachel. A historian's worst nightmare.

Growing up,  my favorite genre in literature was historical fiction. I was enamored by the life styles of the past and the culture. As an adult I know that the past is glorified and is not as "beautiful" and "honorable" as I once believed. However, it was this early fascination with historical fiction that i am now working to become an history and English teacher. Due to this, I am someone who likes precision. I like seeing things in chronological order and I like having key figures to focus on. That being said, I am flexible if a work is chaotic but shows who a person is and creates greater understanding, (Benjy's section from the Sound and the Fury is one of my all time favorite excerpts from a novel).  So imagine my frustration when I read both parts of Reuben and Rachel. There was not one key character but dozens who I did not really care about. I could not connect to any of them in part one and had to reread parts in order to focus on who was the next person in the line of Columbus. It's not like The Killer Angels (Civil War novel) where they announce their change in perspectives in order to show different POVs of the battle of Gettysburg. Yes it helped show the struggles of life and shows lineage but the format was so frustrating I just hated it. To think, this was my favorite part of the book. Part two was just a train wreck. I cannot even believe how scattered it was. At least in book one time was linear. I like time lines and knowing what is going on. I was just so confused and when I get annoyed I tend to quit reading. There was nothing that kept me pulled into the book so I ended up skimming it just to get through the awfulness of it. This isn't even me talking about the blatant bias that leads to historical inaccuracies, but I will use that in an entirely different post.

Emma Corbett and Disney

My group and I discussed the many different Disney characters that reminded us of Emma. At first I mentioned Mulan; however, Mulan was not very wishy washy like Emma. Mulan did act out of love like Emma, but she was much better at compartmentalizing than Emma was. Emma was very feminine whereas Mulan was much more masculine and acted more out of duty than passion. Emma was also trying to save the man that she was in love with causing more stress and her goal was to find him in the army. Her's was not to sacrifice herself to save the man that she loved; rather, her motivation was to save him so that they could both live.  Mulan was going in the place of her father at the risk of being killed for dishonor, but went to sacrifice herself so that her father would live on to support her mother and grandmother. So in my opinion these two  heroine's are not alike.

I then thought that she was like Aurora from Sleeping Beauty(Most likely because I recently just watched it). She was naive like Emma and went for a guy that her guardian would rather her not see because of them wanting her to marry a prince. (Before they realized the guy in the woods was the Prince). She was swept up in romance just like Emma and was all about Philip, like Emma was about Henry. Both were willing to give up anything to be with their love and both were devastated when they were separated from them. They were both at the center of the action (though Aurora was asleep during it, but none-the-less she was there in the tower when Philip fought the dragon at the castle). Both witnessed tragedy and were innocent and naive women before any of the conflict ensued. They were also women who men just fell in love with. Henry wrote beautiful verses to Emma and Philip sang in a wooded glen to Aurora. So for arguments sake, Emma is Aurora from Sleeping Beauty.

Emma Corbett: An Epistolary Novel

As I mentioned in class, I HATE (with a fiery passion I might add) epistolary novels. I read Dracula back in my early days of middle school (I had an obsession with books and would read whatever I could get my hands on) and I despised it. I felt that it was dry and for a book that is supposed to be dark and horrifying, it was in reality just plain boring. I reattempted it my senior year thinking that I was young and that maybe it would be better because I had matured. I was so wrong. I couldn't finish it because I was so bored, which rarely happens with me. This happened with all epistolary novels with me. So when I realized that Emma Corbett was a novel comprised of letters, I almost didn't even try to open it. I am a college student whose grades depend on me doing the homework and I almost decided not to read it, that is the power of my hatred for epistolary novels.But thankfully I manned up and read the book and I am thankful that I did. You see I have a passion for wars and the history behind them and the war that started that passion was the American Revolution. I love that more than any historical event. And so that is what made the book bearable to me. I was able to ignore the letter writing and just focus on the ties to the Revolution and I loved being able to see the different views on the war and how different people reacted to it. By focusing my attention on that aspect of the novel, I was able to complete it in one sitting. I was able to appreciate the beautiful poetic language within the letters and focus on the people who wrote them. I think I can now get over my issues with epistolary novels and actually focus on the text. This does not mean that I will ever love them, but now they are bearable.

Comparison: The Autobiography of Ashley Bowen to other Autobiographies

Many in class believed that the Autobiography of Ashley Bowen was dry or just plain boring. To be honest, I felt the same way when I first read the book. But when I went and reread it I realized, this was a journal/diary of someone who wanted to right his story for his own sake, not for the entertainment of others. When you read other autobiographies, they tend to be more entertaining because they want them published and expect them to be read (or in the case of Anne Frank, she was practicing her writing for later in life so she wrote as if she were going to be read because she wanted to be a journalist). Ashley Bowen never expected his work to be published. He was not writing to entertain Dr. Thomas's Lit 310 class, but writing for himself and possibly his family. It is something that every middle school girl (including myself) attempts. I read my diary from middle school and wanted to shoot myself because of all of the things that I thought were important that was not. Ironically, Ashley Bowen had events happen to him that were so much more interesting than what happened in my middle school life, but he went more into detail about ships than other things. This is because who wants to relive being abused and the death of a loved one? It is difficult enough to write down/acknowledge these painful memories, let alone describe in detail the pain experienced. He wrote in a way that any of us would. We write about/draw what interest us, for Ashley it was ships and he did an excellent job in his descriptions of them. And so my issue with my first read through of the book is that I treated it like I would a fiction novel when in reality I needed to treat it as it was intended, the peak into the mind of a man who lived before our time. I am a historian, it is my minor, and so when I read the book for a second time, I read it like I would a text from one of my history classes. Because of this I had a much better time reading the text and was able to get more out of it. So I would argue, that unlike other auto-biographies, this one is not meant to entertain or inform, but rather it provides a historical and psychological perspective.

What is literature?- A Response to The Female American and The Autobiography of Ashley Bowen

When someone asks me what literature is, I think of something that is that is well written, but that is obviously too vague. What makes a work well written? Is it grammatically correct or can I diagram it in a beautiful fashion? Or is it about the emotion that one feels when reading it or the message that goes along with the story? Honestly, I think it is a combination of all of these things. Something can be completely grammatically correct, but if it is dry and devoid of feeling then it is not well written and it is not considered literature in my eyes .If something stirs emotion within me and has an amazing message, but does not use correct grammar, then the author is discredited and the message undermined. The piece is then not well-written and again, not considered literature in my mind. I will also add that for a work to be well written, then the facts also need to be accurate. I personally do not think that the Female American should be considered literature. I believe it falls more under the propaganda side of things.  There are many discrepancies within the novel about how all natives speak the same or similar language (which is not true) and how her "knowledge" about natives are completely false but are treated as true. This discredits the author and shows how biased the author is against natives. The message is about how she brings Christianity to the natives but is undermined because the natives are depicted in a light that is false, making the reader (me) question the validity of the piece. A work that is well written should not even be questioned about validity because that question never even comes to mind. Thus I do not consider this work literature, merely propaganda about how natives are inferior and need to be "civilized'.

As for the Autobiography of Ashley Bowen, I believe it to be literature. Many believe that it was dry or too fact based, but I would argue that it actually delved more into the mind of the author than most works. When someone is undergoing hardships, it can be hard to write about one's feelings especially when trying to just survive. He is not being cold or dry, he is simply trying to write down his life for his own good, but cannot go more into detail because of how painful the situation is. It is also interesting to compare the mind of a man as opposed to my mind which is female. Men tend to compartmentalize and separate their emotions from facts. I would say that this piece of literature is informative and tells more about a man and how he thinks than anything else. Some might find that boring, but I found it interesting and very informative.

Importance of Authorship of within the Female American

Within the lecture, we were asked why knowing who the author is, is so important? To me it means everything. I look for certain symbolism and metaphors within a novel and critique the writing style to the given genre. However, in this case I cannot because I cannot tell if the novel is non-fiction or fiction. It claims to be an autobiography, but I have found so many discrepancies that I instead treated it like a fiction novel that was written by a British male. By treating the novel like this, I am more harsh about how the natives are portrayed for it is an injustice. The "author" makes them look like a group of children who will do whatever a person of authority will tell them. Unca, who is supposed to be part Native American, knows  nothing about Native culture and treats all groups of native peoples as if they were the same, when we know that they are in fact not. If this was a true story, then I could humanize Unca more and categorize her as an ignorant little girl who knew nothing of the world because her mother died when she was young. I could say that she was acting like a little girl who was trying to do the right thing but did not know how to treat others with respect. Sadly, I do not think that Unca was a real person and I think the author used her character as a tool to show European supremacy over any other culture. She was used as a justification of how European's were more advanced and that anyone else was deemed a "savage". She was have Native half English showing that she "knew" both worlds and chose the "better" of the two. In her benevolence she wants to "teach" (or manipulate) the Natives so that they too could become a civilized people. This, to me,  was more propaganda of how Europeans were the superior race throughout the world, rather than an account of a woman's life before the American Revolution.



This image also shows ignorance, for Unca dressed and acted more like an English lady.