I was admittedly surprised by how much I enjoyed my visit to the Crandall Printing Museum. I found particularly interesting the thread Mr. Crandall sought to create between Gutenberg, the foundation of the United States, and the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon.
What surprised me the very most was how little the printing press evolved up until the 20th century. Gutenberg's first machine was a converted olive press, but looks so similar to the model still being used during the American revolution. And although the printing press that was used to print the Book of Mormon was iron, it too works in virtually the same way. We still use the exact same metal for printing that Gutenberg invented - an alloy of tin, alloy, and lead.
I was also impressed and reminded of the importance of the printed word. Gutenberg's Bible helped but religion back into the hands of individuals rather than in the hand of the upper stratus of the Catholic church. This sped the religious reformations and the Renaissance of the 16th and 17th centuries, which we've all learned since the beginning of our liberal education was essential to the discovery and founding of the Americas. And of course, our own liberal education would be impossible without Gutenberg's innovation.
The patience and persistence and strength required to invent and even operate a printing press is astounding. Setting type, sorting the letters, pulling the lever on the press... Mr. Crandall pointed out that it would've been next to impossible to print the Book of Mormon as quickly as they did without some divine grace to speed things along.
My favorite part of the tour was actually towards the end - I realize that I'm actually quite interested in book binding, and I think I should try to take the class! It sounds so cool! And it's offered on Tuesday and Wednesday from 5 to 9 in Fall Semester... Hm. I think I like that.
I'd definitely recommend a visit to the Printing Museum. It was long but really interesting. Thumbs up.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Women's rights
This week in class we discussed the beginning of the Women's Rights movement, and placed it in the organization of the Relief Society in 1842 in Nauvoo, rather than the traditionally accepted beginning at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Although looking back from 2010, 1848 seems far away, why has it taken women in Western society so long to rally and organize for a concentrated effort for their rights? I certainly don't have all the answers, but it seems that often woman's very position in society has kept her from organizing.
In Western culture, women have long been entrenched in their position as homemakers: servile to men, charged with caring for children and housekeeping, perhaps occupied by more 'menial tasks.' This comes back curiously to the reason why Thomas Jefferson was able to have such a solid self-education and through that help philosophize-up the new American government: he had slaves to do his work for him, and thus was able to free his mind up to think about weightier matters. Women, on the other hand, have long been kept occupied with more menial cares, and further were often (until only very recently) denied the academic opportunities presented to men. Without an education, and without the time to devote to the grander ideas of philosophy, women were probably prevented from even considering their servile position in the same way as men.
Second, the attitudes inherent in Western society had long kept women from seeing their position as that needed to be changed. Our individual attitudes are so fundamentally shaped by our culture. A woman born into a culture where women are perceived as servile, weaker, and with a specific, limiting, matronly role to fill is probably not going to consider rallying for her 'rights' without some outside stimulus - she won't consider herself as being heir to those same 'rights' granted to men. For example, the women at Nauvoo who received their endowments and were sealed to their husbands in the temple received an outside, divine stimulus. They were with outside help able to see their divine role (rather than a cultural one) and see their place as equals with men. In our textbook reading, the author often tries to emphasize that black slaves had an inherent drive for freedom and liberty, and while this may be true for the bond-free conflict, attitudes toward gender roles have are probably different in this respect: societally and culturally based, rather than inherent. The women of Nauvoo, with their divine perspective on gender roles, rather than a cultural perspective, were able to organize for their rights. Although many today see Mormon women as still servile to their husbands as stay-at-home moms, Mormons perhaps have a greater vision of gender equality than do many men and women alike, because they have a divinely inspired pattern for such equality in the temple.
Third, in some situations women were probably kept very isolated from each other, which would prevent them from 'commiserating' (forgive the negative connotation). For example, our textbook talks about how plantation mistresses in the South often complained of isolation. They lived far from one another, separated by acres and acres and acres of land. Perhaps this is another reason why it seems that many social and political movements start in urban areas and spread outward. You've got to have people together, discussing and letting ideas ferment, in order to instigate and inspire change. There can be no rallying - for Women's Rights or for Civil Rights or any rights at all - with out groups of people. One voice, as it turns out, often doesn't do much.
Beyond these reasons, the simple fact that women lacked, to this point, several basic rights and weren't considered full citizens once they were married, but rather minors, they would have been prevented from assembling. Protection of the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press would've been limited in their extension to women. Some women may have also been themselves opposed to an upset of the traditional gender roles implied in the Seneca Falls Convention. Perhaps that's what's so neat about the Nauvoo Relief Soeciety - it plays to women's strengths as caring, organized, and efficient.
In Western culture, women have long been entrenched in their position as homemakers: servile to men, charged with caring for children and housekeeping, perhaps occupied by more 'menial tasks.' This comes back curiously to the reason why Thomas Jefferson was able to have such a solid self-education and through that help philosophize-up the new American government: he had slaves to do his work for him, and thus was able to free his mind up to think about weightier matters. Women, on the other hand, have long been kept occupied with more menial cares, and further were often (until only very recently) denied the academic opportunities presented to men. Without an education, and without the time to devote to the grander ideas of philosophy, women were probably prevented from even considering their servile position in the same way as men.
Second, the attitudes inherent in Western society had long kept women from seeing their position as that needed to be changed. Our individual attitudes are so fundamentally shaped by our culture. A woman born into a culture where women are perceived as servile, weaker, and with a specific, limiting, matronly role to fill is probably not going to consider rallying for her 'rights' without some outside stimulus - she won't consider herself as being heir to those same 'rights' granted to men. For example, the women at Nauvoo who received their endowments and were sealed to their husbands in the temple received an outside, divine stimulus. They were with outside help able to see their divine role (rather than a cultural one) and see their place as equals with men. In our textbook reading, the author often tries to emphasize that black slaves had an inherent drive for freedom and liberty, and while this may be true for the bond-free conflict, attitudes toward gender roles have are probably different in this respect: societally and culturally based, rather than inherent. The women of Nauvoo, with their divine perspective on gender roles, rather than a cultural perspective, were able to organize for their rights. Although many today see Mormon women as still servile to their husbands as stay-at-home moms, Mormons perhaps have a greater vision of gender equality than do many men and women alike, because they have a divinely inspired pattern for such equality in the temple.
Third, in some situations women were probably kept very isolated from each other, which would prevent them from 'commiserating' (forgive the negative connotation). For example, our textbook talks about how plantation mistresses in the South often complained of isolation. They lived far from one another, separated by acres and acres and acres of land. Perhaps this is another reason why it seems that many social and political movements start in urban areas and spread outward. You've got to have people together, discussing and letting ideas ferment, in order to instigate and inspire change. There can be no rallying - for Women's Rights or for Civil Rights or any rights at all - with out groups of people. One voice, as it turns out, often doesn't do much.
Beyond these reasons, the simple fact that women lacked, to this point, several basic rights and weren't considered full citizens once they were married, but rather minors, they would have been prevented from assembling. Protection of the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press would've been limited in their extension to women. Some women may have also been themselves opposed to an upset of the traditional gender roles implied in the Seneca Falls Convention. Perhaps that's what's so neat about the Nauvoo Relief Soeciety - it plays to women's strengths as caring, organized, and efficient.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Amistad
In class on Wednesday, we watched Steven Spielberg's 1997 film Amistad. In this blog, I'm supposed to explain how the film helped me visualize slavery, but the daily grind of slave life is not what Amistad's about. Instead, the film helped me visualize the conditions of the slave passage between African and the New World, and some key actors and arguments in the drama of the slave debate.
The opening minutes of the film, Cinqué's desperate struggle to free himself from his chains in the hull of the ship, are of course highly dramatic and very "Hollywood." They are, however, really riveting and honestly disturbing - the blood, the sweat, the lightning, the rain... It seems to represent the whole of the calamity of African slavery, and it is in that aspect that the film helped me 'visualize slavery.'
There is also Cinqué's description, through the help of an interpreter, (and montaged by Spielberg) of the absolutely inhumane conditions of his capture, trade, and passage. The sight of starving Africans climbing over each other for a morsel of the gruel the sailors brought them... the woman with her baby... the drowning of the slaves... that's all sickening to me, but again helped me 'visualize' the slave trade. I'm used to reading about it in books, but it was really poignant to have a visual representation.
Third, my favorite part of this film was actually that it provided a stage on which the many major arguments for and against slavery were presented. John Quincy Adams, Baldwin, Joadson, and Cinqué himself were able to make voiced powerful arguments against slavery, and Holabird and John C. Calhoun voiced the opposite. These arguments even came up in a discussion with some friends last night.
Didn't West Africans practice slavery themselves? a friend asked. All I had to do was quote Ensign Covey, the interpreter, to explain the difference between these two types of slavery. And who can forget John Quincy Adam's final speech before the Supreme Court of John C. Calhoun's tension-filled words at the Presidential dinner?
More than the daily life of a slave, this film helped me visualize the debate surrounding slavery and the passage between West Africa and the New World.
The opening minutes of the film, Cinqué's desperate struggle to free himself from his chains in the hull of the ship, are of course highly dramatic and very "Hollywood." They are, however, really riveting and honestly disturbing - the blood, the sweat, the lightning, the rain... It seems to represent the whole of the calamity of African slavery, and it is in that aspect that the film helped me 'visualize slavery.'
There is also Cinqué's description, through the help of an interpreter, (and montaged by Spielberg) of the absolutely inhumane conditions of his capture, trade, and passage. The sight of starving Africans climbing over each other for a morsel of the gruel the sailors brought them... the woman with her baby... the drowning of the slaves... that's all sickening to me, but again helped me 'visualize' the slave trade. I'm used to reading about it in books, but it was really poignant to have a visual representation.
Third, my favorite part of this film was actually that it provided a stage on which the many major arguments for and against slavery were presented. John Quincy Adams, Baldwin, Joadson, and Cinqué himself were able to make voiced powerful arguments against slavery, and Holabird and John C. Calhoun voiced the opposite. These arguments even came up in a discussion with some friends last night.
Didn't West Africans practice slavery themselves? a friend asked. All I had to do was quote Ensign Covey, the interpreter, to explain the difference between these two types of slavery. And who can forget John Quincy Adam's final speech before the Supreme Court of John C. Calhoun's tension-filled words at the Presidential dinner?
More than the daily life of a slave, this film helped me visualize the debate surrounding slavery and the passage between West Africa and the New World.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Federalist Paper
I really enjoyed this past week's reading of a few selected Federalist papers, especially as we read them side-by-side with Adam Smith's economic theory. I guess this blog is supposed to be on a single Federalist paper, but I'm going to play with that a little. What I appreciated the most in all of these works - James Madison and Adam Smith together - was the similar theme of pluralism.
In Federalist 51 and 57, James Madison argues that the best cure for factions is actually to let factions perpetuate and multiply. The fact of having "several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places" (51). A plurality of many minority factions provides safety from the take-over of a single majority faction. The presence of a "multiplicity of interests" and a "multiplicity of sects" will, Madison argues, protect in turn civil and religious liberty (51). A multiplicity of factions and interests requires, as Madison more fully elaborates in Federalist 57, a large are of land. Here, Madison argues that factions act out of self-interest, but further that having several competing parties act out of self-interest actually benefits the rights and liberties of all, because it checks the 'tyranny of the faction,' as we could say.
Madison says it this way: "Extend the sphere" (allow a single government to rule a larger populace) "and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens" (57). This, as Dr. Hozapfel mentioned in class, is James Madison's so-called Large State Theory, and it seems, to this point, to have more or less worked.
This sounds, in a certain way, similar to Adam Smith's theories set forth in The Wealth of Nations. From the very beginning, Smith praises the "division of labour" because it allows for improvement of "skill, dexterity, and judgment," giving the classic example of the hatpin makers. For Smith, divvying up tasks allows workers to specialize, which enables efficiency and productivity. This clearly recalls Madison's claim that a greater diversity of factions enables a productive protection of civil and religious liberties.
In the second chapter of The Wealth of Nations, Smith states he fundamental principle of his economic theory: that the market operates on self-interest, which actually benefits the market. This is so similar to what Madison says - that several competing (and let's say 'specialized') factions can actually factions benefit the society.
In the third chapter, Smith argues that in a small market, there is less division of labor, and that thus in a larger market, there is greater diversity and specialization of labor. Again this sounds like Madison: in a large populace, there is a greater diversity of interests and thus factions.
The gist is this:
Both Adam Smith and James Madison argue that in a larger market or a larger population, there is a great degree of specialization. For Smith's economic theory this means that rather than being a jack-of-all-trades, an individual in the market will analyze basketball statistics or make shoelaces for a living. For Madison's political theory, this means that an individual will be a tobacco lobbyist or protest abortion clinics. In both theories, this diversity and specialization benefits the whole society. In Smith's economy, our basketball statistics analyst can call a plumber to fix his shower head and buy his milk and bread at the grocery store rather than farming himself. In Madison's political 'economy,' the tobacco lobbyists and pro-lifers, along with thousands of other factions, are vying for their own interests, which competition means that neither can take over and rule as a tyrannical majority.
Cool.
In Federalist 51 and 57, James Madison argues that the best cure for factions is actually to let factions perpetuate and multiply. The fact of having "several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places" (51). A plurality of many minority factions provides safety from the take-over of a single majority faction. The presence of a "multiplicity of interests" and a "multiplicity of sects" will, Madison argues, protect in turn civil and religious liberty (51). A multiplicity of factions and interests requires, as Madison more fully elaborates in Federalist 57, a large are of land. Here, Madison argues that factions act out of self-interest, but further that having several competing parties act out of self-interest actually benefits the rights and liberties of all, because it checks the 'tyranny of the faction,' as we could say.
Madison says it this way: "Extend the sphere" (allow a single government to rule a larger populace) "and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens" (57). This, as Dr. Hozapfel mentioned in class, is James Madison's so-called Large State Theory, and it seems, to this point, to have more or less worked.
This sounds, in a certain way, similar to Adam Smith's theories set forth in The Wealth of Nations. From the very beginning, Smith praises the "division of labour" because it allows for improvement of "skill, dexterity, and judgment," giving the classic example of the hatpin makers. For Smith, divvying up tasks allows workers to specialize, which enables efficiency and productivity. This clearly recalls Madison's claim that a greater diversity of factions enables a productive protection of civil and religious liberties.
In the second chapter of The Wealth of Nations, Smith states he fundamental principle of his economic theory: that the market operates on self-interest, which actually benefits the market. This is so similar to what Madison says - that several competing (and let's say 'specialized') factions can actually factions benefit the society.
In the third chapter, Smith argues that in a small market, there is less division of labor, and that thus in a larger market, there is greater diversity and specialization of labor. Again this sounds like Madison: in a large populace, there is a greater diversity of interests and thus factions.
The gist is this:
Both Adam Smith and James Madison argue that in a larger market or a larger population, there is a great degree of specialization. For Smith's economic theory this means that rather than being a jack-of-all-trades, an individual in the market will analyze basketball statistics or make shoelaces for a living. For Madison's political theory, this means that an individual will be a tobacco lobbyist or protest abortion clinics. In both theories, this diversity and specialization benefits the whole society. In Smith's economy, our basketball statistics analyst can call a plumber to fix his shower head and buy his milk and bread at the grocery store rather than farming himself. In Madison's political 'economy,' the tobacco lobbyists and pro-lifers, along with thousands of other factions, are vying for their own interests, which competition means that neither can take over and rule as a tyrannical majority.
Cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)