Money's Control

In American Studies we looked at the image of the standard oil octopus, who encompassed much of the government. However, what struck me about the image was not the octopus itself, but the amount of the world the United States of America was depicted as occupying. It seemed to say two things, that the octopus, by taking over the USA had taken over the world, and that the USA essentially equaled the world. After reading the beginning of Gatsby, this double interpretation returned to mind. The parties and homes along with other displays of wealth seemed extravagant almost to the point of insanity, causing me to wonder if the wealth controlled the upper class as standard oil controlled the USA. Similarly, this “control” could be interpreted in a similar double interpretation. The upper class was nowhere near representative of the entirety of America. However, as we learned in class, “the actions of the few fueled the dreams of the many”. Hence, the importance and impact of the rich can be compared to the size of the USA in the octopus image. Also, going with the idea of money’s control over said rich people, money thus controlled the USA. This is not to say that only the rich are motivated by money, most, if not all people find an incentive in money. However, the actions of the aforementioned rich Americans are a prime example of control by money.

History or Literature?

This post is a little bit jumbled and confusing, I tried to convey a thought process as I experienced it and hence it may contradict itself and be hard to understand.

When working on the compare and contrast assignment in American studies I asked if we should analyze FIDDS in our essay. I was met with the response that no, we didn’t need to analyze FIDDS as this was Studies and not Literature. I accepted the answer and continued on with my writing, realizing that if I had attempted to analyze FIDDS, my essay would have far exceeded the recommended length, and I would have been unable to complete it within time. Upon further thought I stumbled upon the question of why we don’t analyze history as we do literature. After all, there is still material to be analyzed in historical documents with figurative language, imagery, details, diction, and syntax. I then came to the idea that maybe it is because History’s goal is different from Literature’s goal. History is meant to tell us what happened and literature is meant to provide insight into meanings and insinuations of text. But if that is the case, then aren’t those insights and insinuations crucial to the understanding of what happened, and the effect on others. So perchance history is the thing and literature is the effect? But no, literature can sometimes also be the cause of history, as we explored in our journals, and events are often a crucial part of literature (as seen in Billy Budd).  Perhaps the distinction between the two subjects must be determined in a case by case basis. For instance, the compare contrast in history could be conducted as a literary analysis with historical aspects if given the space and the time, or as a historical analysis with literary reference in the case of the assignment. Overall, history and literature must only be separated in a case by case basis, distinguishing the analysis based on situational needs. And, in reference to my previous blog on why history and literature must go together, in certain cases their analysis must go together.

The Use of First Person Pronouns in the Discussion of History

During the last graded discussion, we were reminded that it is not appropriate to use the pronoun “we” in relation to slavery, as we ourselves were not slaves and did not own slaves. However, while I agree with this in the sense that it is inappropriate to claim to have been or sold slaves, there are certain topics where first person is appropriate, and actually necessary for full discussion. One such topic, and a major part of the aforementioned graded discussion is the subject of making up for the horror of slavery. Removing one’s self from an event can allow for a broader and less biased view. However, when ideas of current action which is applicable to everyone, such as the removal of racism and discrimination, it is imperative that we take notice of our involvement so as to understand that it is our responsibility as well. First person pronouns must also be used when discussing the government so as to solidify our involvement in it. Even when speaking of the government during the eighteen and nineteen hundreds first person pronouns are applicable, as we must take responsibility for the actions of our government, and cannot shirk our duty to repay simply because it wasn’t us. If we remove ourselves from our government and our history’s application to today, then we significantly limit the amount we can heal the wounds of our past.

In connection to the idea of learning from the past, the use of first person pronouns is necessary because it forces us to apply the history to today.  Thus helping us to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating the terrible parts of our past while improving upon the good parts. Overall, first person pronouns, while not appropriate in some cases, are most definitely  acceptable and even necessary in others, as they allow us to become an active part in our history and the repairs of the not-so-glamorous parts of our past, take responsibility for our government, and learn effectively from the past.

The Importance of Syntax and Grammar Especially in Regards to Historical Documents

In literature class, we created grammar notebooks, places for us to practice and improve our storytelling by using correct grammar. We also looked at the syntax of a description of Ichabod Crane to determine more about his character. There was an abundance of meaning in just those few sentences, demonstrating the astounding effect of organization. Any effective writer must know how to play with structure to convey more information than could be contained in words alone. However, to ensure that the reader can understand the base message, the author must stay away from overly complex or scrambled organization, like we are learning with our notebooks. Hence, to be an effective storyteller, one must walk the fine line of inserting meaning with syntax and hiding it with incorrect grammar. If this is done correctly than the reader sees more of the picture in the writer’s head and the gap between the two minds is closed. This is especially important in historical texts because the author is, in essence, documenting an event with their words. If the historian or reader cannot glean an accurate representation of what happened, then that moment of history is skewed in its representation and many people are misinformed, possibly leading to future consequences. Overall, syntactical structure and its manipulation within the realm of proper grammar is imperative to the success of any storyteller, particularly when that story is of historical value.

Why the Study of History and Literature Must Be Paired Together

51,000 human beings dead, 51,000 people who will never see their families again, each one a tragic story displayed only as a section of a colored block moving across a screen. It pains me to think that each soldier and civilian who lost their life in the Battle of Gettysburg, or any battle for that matter, could be simplified down to a speck and a number, or even rounded away to make it easier for me to remember. People are not numbers, and they must never be viewed only as such. This is why history and literature must be intertwined. History gives us general statistics and literature tells individual stories, together they provide the big picture of what really happened. Without literature, history would carry far less emotional value, and without history, literature would have no context to make sense with. Together, they support each other for increased credibility. Essentially, when combined there is a much stronger sense of ethos, pathos, and logos, all compiling for a stronger representation of the event and the text. Pure statistics can account for origin, but to truly understand value it is important to surpass the limitation of a constricted view and venture into the emotional side of historical events. The things learned in one class are most definitely applicable in the other as they intertwine with each other like the subjects themselves. In this blog alone, I have combined the ideas of areas of argument strength and historical analysis to prove my point. To go back to the first example, we are given the historical stats to understand the numbers, but only if paired with a text, such as a soldier’s journal, can we  better understand both the lit and the history. Overall, combining or intertwining history and literature creates a better knowledge and comprehension of both.

The Genius of OPVL in Closing the Understanding Gap Between Authors and Readers

What the author intends and what the reader understands is not the same. This is due to language’s inability to fully convey what an individual is thinking. Hence, analysis of text can never fully grasp the meaning of a document. These differences and inaccuracies may cause one to question the validity of historical analysis such as the OPVL. OPVL provides a structure for pulling meaning from historical texts. However, with the writer to reader gap, one wonders if the found purpose and value could ever be close to accurate, and if taking the time to analyze in this manner is worth the effort at all. Thankfully, most historical documents can be placed in context with others like them, allowing us to look at texts on the same subject to see if what we pull from one contains similarities to the rest. If not, the author most likely did not intend for the message received from said document. Context allows for us to avoid the gap stretching too far by allowing us to look for patterns that ensure our analysis makes sense with history. The OPVL method contains checks for both purpose and value. Accounting for the origin of the document gives hints as to the purpose. For example, a letter written by Abigail Adams probably would not be trying to convince the general public of women’s inferiority. Additionally, accounting for limitations makes sure that the values pulled from the text are not skewed by bias or inaccuracy. Overall, the OPVL’s system of internal checks and balances closes much of the author to reader gap by ensuring that the textual analysis is valid and put into context, thus making the analysis of historical documents definitely worth out time.

Racism: Do Humans Have the Ability to Change?

Everyone can agree that racism is still existent in today’s culture. This occurrence was predicted far in advance by politicians during the time of slavery. In his “Notes on the State of Virginia” Jefferson mentions that the slaves cannot be integrated into American culture because prejudices would create lasting separation. Abraham Lincoln states something quite similar, saying that there is an underlying feeling which would prevent the equalization of slaves from being correct in the minds of the white Americans. Though discrimination has been combated over many generations by many different people, it still exists today, causing us to question the human capacity to change. Are we actually able to renovate the way we think and will this impede on further progression of society? I argue that our ability to change is limited, but existent.  When presented with a culture we have preexisting ideas about, we see it as what we thought it would be like. This is shown through Mary Rowlandson’s descriptions of the Native Americans as savage beasts, and her constantly covering up their good deeds with what they have done wrong, thus fitting them to how they were stereotypically imagined. Thoughts like this cause the stereotyped to be forced to conform to how others see them and hence further the cultural divide. Once caught in this cycle, it is difficult for those doing the stereotyping to change views about said culture. However, if one stops stereotyping, thoughts can slowly shift toward equality. In application to slavery and racism, Jefferson and Lincoln were incorrect in saying that integration was impossible. While prejudice is not yet a thing of the past, we have made progress and are trending toward a brighter future. Overall, our healing of discrimination speaks for a slight human capacity for change, despite the gloomy predictions of some early politicians.