School Blog

This is my Buick

This is my baby. My Buick Reatta. It's 19 years old, it doesn't really work. The radio doesn't work, the tape player doesn't work, the speakers don't work, the electric windows sort of work, the alignment's off and I don't have the money to fix it, the oil light doesn't work, the parking brake doesn't work, the parking break light doesn't work, the locks don't work, the trunk won't open, the AC doesn't work, I get heat if I turn up the temperature on the defrost, but other than that the heat doesn't work either, the paint's badly chipped, and all the upholstery's pretty much gone to hell. But I love this car; not because all my guy friends think it's sexy, but because it is sexy. I'm going to be so sad when it completely breaks down.

THE TRUTH BEHIND 9/11, YOU MUST READ THIS, DON'T LET YOURSELF BE DECIEVED!: A Comparative Study Between Part-time Conspiracy Theorists and Full-time Experts

   The events of 9/11 are one of the most widely discussed issues between conspiracy theorists. Simply googling any combination of the words "building," "debris," "controlled demolition," or "Boeing 757" will bring up links to conspiracy theorist websites. For sure, there is no shortage of speculation on the "truth" of the September 11th attacks. But if a true skeptic were to investigate these theories in depth, they would find that there is little to no logical support for these theories. Those who purport theories that the events September 11th were due to something other than Al Qaeda terrorist attacks rely on misapplied, and at times even faulty information.

   Eric Hufschmid is the author of Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack. In his interview with Connie Bryan in this video (1), they are discussing some of the main points to his book. During the interview, it should be noted that neither Hufschmid nor Bryan quote or refer any experts on any of the subjects they discuss except for one professor at Bringham Young University, all they are doing is speculating. The first point that they discuss is that after the collapse of the Twin Towers, there was no debris left, so something other than a normal collapse must have happened. They discuss that firefighters comment that there was no office equipment or pieces of the building after the collapse. What they do not consider was the effect that the extreme height of the Twin Towers would have on an objects impact with the ground. Both towers were over 400 meters tall, a computer, or "piece of staircase" would not survive a 400 meter fall intact. After a 400 meter fall, any object would be pulverized, resulting in an extremely large dust cloud such as this:

(2)

   Hufschmid and Bryan also discuss how the building fell at free fall speeds, something usually only characteristic of controlled demolitions, and they use this as proof that explosives must have been in the buildings. Again, the detail that they overlook is the extreme size and height of the building. The Twin Towers were the first buildings of their size to collapse in such a manner, and because of this, there's no building demolition to compare the collapse of the Twin Towers to. Without complete information of how these buildings should collapse, they are in no position to accurately make speculations that the buildings could have collapsed due to anything other than structural damage. Hufschmid and Bryan also discuss the way the dust from the collapse "swirled" as the buildings were falling, and how that must be evidence that something other than a normal collapse was occurring. The main pieces of evidence that Hufschmid uses is that debris was flying out of the windows horizontally as the floors were collapsing, and that as the floors collapsed they must have created a vacuum above them, causing the dust from the collapse to swirl up into the vacuum.

   On these points, it must first be noted that Eric Hufschmid is not a physicist of any kind, he is a software developer, nor does he reference any physicists on these points. As for the debris flying horizontally, this is easily explained by the way in which the floors collapsed, as explained by S. Shyam Sunder, who was the head engineer of the official congressional investigation. Sunder explains that as the steel floor beams buckled, they pulled inward on the outside steel reinforcements of the buildings. When the reinforcements snapped from the pressure, they and the surrounding material flew outward, or rather, horizontally. A more detailed explanation may be found here (3). So what of the missing "vacuum?" This piece of "evidence" can be debunked by Hufschmid's own theory. His mistake is that he's looking at the wrong section of the collapse. In the video, you can see he's pointing to right above where the collapse is occurring; if you look higher up, at the top of the dust cloud, you can see that the dust is "swirling in" as he puts it.

   The last piece of "evidence" that Hufschmid and Bryan discuss is the rapid removal and disposal of debris from the Twin Towers collapse as proof that the government was trying to cover up it's involvement in blowing up the World Trade Center. An aspect of this claim is that much of the steel was sold to outside companies to recycle the steel. A question that this aspect creates is, if the government were trying to hide evidence, why would it dispense the evidence to the public? That aside, the claim that all debris was immediately disposed of is wrong. As explained in "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2, & 7 From an Explosives  and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint," (4) by contractors who worked directly with the debris removal process, the rubble from the towers was moved out of the way, moved to an out of the way location, analyzed by multiple experts, then shipped off.

   So what do conspiracy theorists think of the Pentagon attack? This video (5) gives the general conspiracy theorist consensus that the Pentagon attack was orchestrated by the government and carried out by the military. The video intimates that the Pentagon was not really hit by a Boeing 757, but by a missile, and it gives several explanations to support this. The first explanation the video gives is that there was seemingly no 757 debris after the crash. The video shows pictures of the holes that were made in the walls of the Pentagon, and indicates that you cannot see any debris. However, these pictures only show  a small portion of the crash site, not the whole area. This video (6) (at about 2 min. 40 sec.), reports that airplane debris can be seen all over the area. Aside from the fact that a picture only shows one small area of the crash site, the video neglects to notice that there is no debris from the building visible either. The next point that the video makes is that if a 757 had crashed into the Pentagon, it would have injured the ground around it. However, when you look at the security camera video (7) of the crash, you can see that debris from the impact only comes off the Pentagon, not from anywhere off the ground, indicating that the object did not hit the ground, and either way would have left no turf damage.

   The next point that the video makes as to why it couldn't have been a 757 that hit the Pentagon was the apparent ineptitude of the hijackers. There are indeed numerous accounts from their respective flight schools about what bad pilots the hijackers were. However, according to this Washington Post article (8) the hijackers did in fact receive their certification for flying planes. Other flaws that the video contains in its argument are the inconsistencies of the evidence it uses. Part of the video's argument is that witnesses did not see a 757 hit the Pentagon, they claimed it was some other sort of aircraft. However, speculation on what that other sort of aircraft may have been is varied, and further on in the video, there are witnesses who do claim to have seen a 757 hit the Pentagon. The final inconsistency in the video is its comparison of the Pentagon plane crash with other plane crashes. Of the other plane crashes the video uses, the scenario differs. Some crashes hit the ground and skid before coming to a stop, others simply hit the ground head on, and none of them hit a building.

   Why are 9/11 conspiracy theories so rampant in today's culture? They certainly show the diverseness of America's population. All one has to do is compare the comments on the youtube videos presented here to see a wide variety of personalities, and personal, social, and political opinions. So why do some choose to believe these theories? Perhaps they have become jaded by a government they inherently mistrust. This mistrust may be fueled by government secrecy not only about the September 11th attacks, but other issues as well. Perhaps some look back at scandals like Watergate, and Vietnam and believe that history will repeat itself. And perhaps others still look at the great American mysteries such as the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations and refuse to believe that a great mystery for our time wouldn't exist as well. Whatever the case, the arguments for and against these theories show the diversity of American popular opinion today.

Bibliography:

1. Bryan, Connie. "9/11 Lies and Deceptions." Nov. 17, 2006. Youtube. <http://youtube.com/watch?v=K8hi303peYU>

2. Hulshizer, Daniel. "9/11." Retrieved Dec. 6, 2007. <http://freethoughts.org/archives/9-11-n.jpg>

3. Lewis, Susan K. "Building on Ground Zero." Aug. 3, 2006. NOVA. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html>

4. Blanchard, Brent. "A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2, & 7 From an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint." Aug, 8, 2006. Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 2. <http://www.jod911.com/>

5. "Ogilvieci." "9/11 Coverup Conspiracy- No 757." March 28, 2007. Youtube. <http://youtube.com/watch?v=zAwtmun_aj8>

6. "Waldemar3." "Uncut Unedited Raw 9/11/01 Satellite Feed Pentagon Video." Nov. 12, 2007. Youtube. <http://youtube.com/watch?v=dsu-jVRzrfA>

7. "Pacifico555." "9/11 Pentagon Video." May 16, 2006. Youtube. <http://youtube.com/watch?v=40g4ZSHtpMc>

8. Yardley, Jonathan. "The 9/11 Hijackers." The Washington Post. May, 1, 2005. Pg. BW02. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801315.html>

9/11 Conspiracies

The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th: Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon

   This is an article published on a 9/11 conspiracy theory website. The article centers around the theory that the government planned the crash of these flights and impeded air traffic controller's and emergency aircraft's ability to respond to the situation. The author of this article, Jeremy Baker, does a poor job providing background information on the subject. The statistics Baker uses come seemingly out of nowhere, and he provides no citation for them, e.g. "49% of New Yorkers believe that the government had   something to do with 9/11. Following an interview with Charlie Sheen, a CNN   poll revealed that 82% of respondents believed that there was 'a government   cover-up of 9/11.'" Baker also frequently refers to 9/11 "researchers" and "theorists" to support what he says in the article, but also neglects to cite who the researchers and theorists are.

   Baker's interview subject, Robin Hordon, initially seems very credible. Although not a direct witness to the 9/11 incidences, Hordon is a trained air traffic controller with an impressive background. He gives a competent, informative account on what he thinks should have happened, based on his training and past experiences. However, he begins to lose credibility when he begins to speculate on what the government may have done to intentionally cause the flights to crash. Hordon continues to lose credibility when he begins coming up with his own theories further in the article. Hordon, and Baker finally lose even more credibility when they begin to get off topic, talking generally of what they think about the "9/11 Truth Movement."

This is an audio interview with Robin Hordon:

Interview With Former Boston Center Air Traffic Controller Regarding 9/11

Assignment #5: Comic Books in 1960s American Culture

Comic Books in 1960s American Culture

Works Cited:

1. Abbott, C., Anderson, V., Argersinger, J., Argersinger, P., Barney, W., Goldfield, D., Weir, R. The American Journey: A History of the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

2. Coville, Jamie. "The History of Comic Books." TheComicsBooks. Nov. 6, 2007. http://www.collectortimes.com/~comichistory/Hist3.html.

3. Author Unkown. "The 1960's: A New Kind of (Super)hero." Comic Book Cultures. Online Exhibit. Duke University Libraries. Electronic publication March 3, 2005. Accessed Nov. 6, 2007. http://library.duke.edu/exhibits/comicbookcultures/1960s/index.html

4. Rosenkranz, Patrick. Rebel Visions: The Underground Comix Revolution 1963-1975. Washington: Fantagraphics Books, 2002.

5. Author Unkown. "Comics Code Authority." Article. Wikipedia. Electronic Publication Nov. 5, 2007. Accessed Nov. 9, 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority

Assignment #4: The Photographic History of the Civil War

    The Civil War was the third war in history to be recorded through photography. At the time of the Civil War, photographs provided a new, wholy realistic view of the war that could not be provided by paintings or verbal accounts. Photographs of the war were provided to a range of audiences. From being sold in galleries and to newspapers for the general public to see, to the governments who hired photographers for the war, everyone at the time could see directly the events of the Civil War. To date, there are still thousands of photographs left from that time, all providing a valuable record of the war to audiences today. But there was more to photography in the Civil War than just snapping and selling pictures; the pictures taken all had a specific purpose, and shooting photographs was difficult, dangerous, and only sometimes rewarding.

    Photographers at the time had different motivations for photographing the Civil War; some were semi-official photographers of the war, hired by the government, others were unoffical photographers who were there to take photos for profit or were there under a sense of obligation to record this major event in American history. This resulted in a wide variety of subject matter in the photographs. Of those hired by the government, there subject matter varied depending on what government bureau they were hired by. For example, Alexander Gardner was hired by the Tophographical Engineers to photograph maps and distribute the copies (though he was most widely known for his unofficial battle scene photographs). Other semi-official photographers included George Barnard, who photographed for the Corps of Engineers, and Sam F. Cooley, who photographed for the Quartermaster's Department. Of the unofficial photographers, the most famous were the ones who were there to provide a photographic record of the war. The most famous of these were Mathew Brady and Alexander Gardner. Their photographs consisted of views of army encampments, battles, and scenes of the fallen soldiers. While these types of photographs are the most well known now, the most popular type of photograph taken during the war was the portrait. The main purpose of the portrait was as a source of income for photographers who followed the armies from camp to camp. The Bergtresser brothers, for example, followed the army for nearly a year, taking literally thousands of portraits at a dollar a piece.

    With this job came the extreme difficulty of actually taking the photographs. The process of taking photographs at the time was laborious, time-consuming, and extremely delicate; any number of things could go wrong when creating the photograph. Photographers at the time worked with collodion-on-glass, or wet-plate, negatives. The process of making these involved coating a clean sheet of glass in collodion, partially drying it, and bathing it in silver nitrate. The glass was then exposed in the camera for several seconds and then processed in a makeshift darkroom. The most obvious obstacle this created for photographers was the amount of time this process took. It made it nearly impossible to photograph battle or marching scenes; the photographer was only able to acheive such scenes if he was lucky enough to have cooperation from the commanding officer. Along with this came the problem of where to set up the photography equipment. On the battlefield, terrain was generally too uneven for the amount of equipment that needed to be set up; it was also quite imperative that the photographer find a place safely out of the way of enemy fire. If the photographer was even able to take the photograph, the development of the negative proved further trouble. Out in the field, wayward bugs or debris could find their way into the chemical, or onto the still wet negative and easily ruin it.

    Obtaining, transporting, and keeping the equipment and chemicals safe also proved difficult for field photographers. Many photographers had wagons to transport their equipment, but portable dark rooms were expensive and hard to obtain. If the wagon or equipment was destroyed, it was hard to replace in a timely manner. The glass needed for the negatives was heavy and hard to transport, and chemicals needed to be kept safe. This occasionally proved especially difficult on the battlefield. A perfect example of what a problem this posed for photographers was an incident that happened to Mathew Brady at Petersburg. As he was attempting to shoot a photograph of the battle, gunshots from the armies frightened the horse tethered to his portable darkroom, destroying his equipment and chemicals. Another photographer, George S. Cook, who photographed for the Confederacy, also faced similar difficulties. As he was photographing the battle at Fort Moulrie, incoming fire knocked some of his equipment into a rainwater cistern (he was able, though, to pay a soldier five dollars to fish it out for him).

    While there are no records of photographers being killed in battle, those most devoted to photographing the battle did put themselves in risky situations. Because taking a photograph involved so much equipment, photographers were forced to schlep their dark rooms and wagons wherever it was that the photograph was being taken. If a photographer wanted to shoot a battle, this involved moving and setting up their equipment directly in the battle, sometimes even all the way up to the trenches. This put photographers directly in the line of fire of sharpshooters and flying debris. For instance, as George S. Cook was photographing the battle at Fort Moulrie, he was eventually ordered by the commanding officer to get away from the battle and out of sight because he and his wagon were drawing too much fire from the opposing army. Another danger that photographers faced was if they took jobs photographing for their respective government's secret service. Photographs taken secretly of the opposing army relayed such information as batteries, regiments, camps, artillery, and lookouts. Because these photographs contained such sensitive information, photographers captured while taking them were subject to be treated, and punished, as spies.

    It was only after the Civil War that photographers began receiving due recognition for their efforts. Photographers put their lives on the line just as much as the soldiers in an effort to provide such a record their governments and fellow countrymen. While some photographers, such as the Bergtresser brothers, were able to find a way of making an income out of their profession, others, such as Mathew Brady, went bankrupt due to the expense of their endeavors. Many photographers, such as those who worked under Brady, will never be recognized, due to the fact that Brady's name, and no one else's was attributed to every photograph, regardless of who took it. Other's will never be recognized because they photographed for the Confederacy, and after its defeat most pictures were hidden away or destroyed for being records of a failed rebellion. Finally, in the 20th century, did photographers begin receiving note for their efforts from researchers, archivists, and the American government. It is through this reognition that we now have a comprehensive account of the experience of photographers in the Civil War.

Civil War Photographs

Works Cited:

1. Department of Photographs. "Photography and the Civil War, 1861–1865". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phcw/hd_phcw.htm (October 2004)

2. Josephin Cobb. "Photographers of the Civil War." Military Affairs Vol. 26, No. 3 (Autumn 1962) pp. 127-135. JSTOR. Accessed Oct. 22, 2007

3. Miller, Francis Trevekyan, ed. The Photographic History of the Civil War in Ten Volumes. New York: The Review of Reviews Company, 1912.

Post #3: A Digital Dig for Barrow's Plantation

    The Barrows were a prominent Georgia family; they had migrated south from Virginia, and by 1860 owned several plantations in the state of Georgia. One of the many plantations that the Barrows owned in Georgia was a plantation located somewhere in Oglethorpe County, near a body of water called Little River. The only image that we have of this plantation is a rough sketch of it included in an article written by David Barrow Jr. The map's main purpose within the article is to illustrate the change in a plantation community from 1860 to 1881 (before and after emancipation). However, the map is very vague as to it's location, and there is even an error in the drawing. To find out this error and to clarify where the Barrow's Plantation is located, some background research must be done. Through this research we may find where exactly Barrow's Plantation is located, what the error in the map is, as well as significant historical information on the owners and inhabitants of Barrow's Plantation.

   From looking at the map, we know that Barrow's Plantation is located in Oglethorpe County, Georgia (see photos 1 and 2). The plantation is bordered by Little River, and has three creeks running through it: Wright's Fork, Branch Creek, and Syll's Fork. An 1885 map (see photo 3) of Oglethorpe County show's that there's a town named Syll's Fork just Southwest of Philomath, Georgia. Is this the same Syll's Fork that is indicated in the map of Barrow's Plantation? If it is, a comparison between the map of Oglethorpe, and the map of Barrow's Plantation exposes the error in the Barrow's Plantation map; the two maps shows the Branch Creek and Syll's Fork split pointing in opposite directions, which means that the orientation of one of the maps is incorrect. A modern satellite image of the Philomath area show's the orientation of the two creeks as it is depicted in the map of Oglethorpe. This means that the error present in the map of Barrow's Plantation is the orientation; the orientation is almost completely upside down. From the map of Oglethorpe County and the satellite image of the Philomath area, it may be seen that Barrow's plantation is located in the lower region of Oglethorpe County, just southwest of Philomath.

   Once the exact location of Barrow's Plantation is known, more information may be gathered about the plantation itself. While the plantation had become it's own town by 1881, today the land is entirely undeveloped. An interesting point though, is that the outline of the plantation can still be seen today, over 100 years later. But what about the plantation as it was those 100 years ago? And what of it's owners and inhabitants? The first map of Barrow's Plantation is found in David C. Barrow Jr.'s article, "A Georgia Plantation," written in 1881; a copy of this article can be found on the Library of Congress website. From this article, the reader can learn about the lifestyle of African Americans after emancipation as well as get a glimpse of the personality of David C. Barrow Jr. While much information about African American life may be garnered from the article, it is difficult to gain much information from other sources. However, knowing David C. Barrow's (see photo 4) name is incredibly useful for finding other documents and pictures. Using familysearch.org, one may find the lineage of David C. Barrow Jr. and discover that he is the great-grandson of the famous Georgian politician Wilson Lumpkin on his mother's side. One may also find that David C. Barrow Jr. became chancellor of the University of Georgia and that his family remained prominent and wealthy land owners into the 20th century.

   These additional documents that can be found greatly assists in the interpretation of the map of Barrow's Plantation. The map was drawn to point out the specific development of African American communities after emancipation. While a basic understanding of this may be gathered from the map, an even greater understanding may be gathered from these additional documents. For instance, prior to, and even after emancipation, Whites thought that African Americans weren't capable of caring for themselves, weren't capable of behaving like humans. Many thought that African Americans would be given to violence, such as sexually assaulting white women (American Journey, 316), and even go so far as abandoning their own children (Georgia Plantation, 835). The document that accompanies the original copy of the map, as well as a second article written by David C. Barrow Jr. (see photo 5) was written to explain the success of the African American in the communities that were created through sharecropping. However, other documents show that while sharecropping did create a means for the African American to support themselves, the end result for them was an economical setup not much different from slavery (American Journey 464). Families, even young children (see photo 6) continued to labor on white owner's farms. While the map of Barrow's Plantation is a wonderful piece of evidence for showing the development of African American communities, it does not give the entire picture, so to speak. To fully understand the intricacies of the African American community after emancipation, Additional documents, such as the ones presented here, must be used.

See photos here

Bibliography:

1. Abbott, C., Anderson, V., Argersinger, J., Argersinger, P., Barney, W., Goldfield, D., Weir, R. The American Journey: A History of the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

2. Barrow, David C. "A Georgia Corn Shucking." The Century; a popular memory. Volume 24, Issue 6, Oct. 1882. Periodical. American Memory, Library of Congress. Date of electronic publication unavailable. 10/8/07 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/

3. Barrow, David C. "A Georgia Plantation." Scribner's Monthly, an Illustrated Magazine For The People. Volume 21, Issue 5, March 1881. Periodical. American Memory, Library of Congress. Date of electronic publication unavailable. 10/8/07 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/

4. Carl Vinson Institute of Government. Oglethorpe County Historical Maps. 1885 Map of Oglethorpe County. University of Georgia. Copyright 2007. 10/6/07 http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/histcountymaps/oglethorpe1885bmap.htm

5. Landrum-Kelly, Sandy L. The Barrow Family. Descendants of Thomas Barrow, Sr. Copyright 2007. 10/7/07 http://www.georgiakellys.com/barrow.htm

6. Photographer unknown. "Photograph of African American children picking cotton on Sen. Pope Barrow's home place, Oglethorpe County, 1899." Print Publication unavailable. Digital Library of Georgia. Photograph. University of Georgia. Published electronically 2004. 10/10/07 http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu

7. The New Georgia Encyclopedia. David C. Barrow Jr. Short Biography of David C. Barrow. University of Georgia. Copyright 2007. 10/6/07 www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-857

8. Willis, John C. Reconstructing the South. History Seminar website. University of the South. 1999. 10/12/2007 http://itw.sewanee.edu/reconstruction/html/docs/barrow.html

The Lamentable Tale of Pigeon's Egg Head

   George Catlin is an artist famous for his depictions of Native Americans. But while Catlin was not the only artist to paint Native Americans, his paintings are famous for the unique approach that they took. His paintings depicted Native Americans in all their glory as a unique and beautiful culture. But George Catlin's paintings are famous not only for their depiction of the beauty of Native American culture, but for the warning that they provided against the destruction of the Native American culture by the White Man's culture. A perfect example of this is George Catlin's painting of a young Assinneboin warrior named Pigeon's Egg Head, and the corresponding story of his demise. George Catlin's painting, and the narrative that goes with it, shows that Pigeon's Egg Head epitomizes the vices of the White Man and the negative effects of the clash of cultures on the Native Americans.

   The two depictions of Pigeon's Egg Head vary greatly. The first picture, on the left, shows Pigeon's Egg Head as he was before his trip to Washington. He stands regally, with good posture, and exuding confidence. He wears full Indian traditional dress. It is an outfit made of expensive material, and richly decorated with fringe and porcupine quills, and with a colorful design. On his head he wears a collection of war eagle's feathers. It is obvious from this first painting that Pigeon's Egg Head is a proud, traditional Native American. The second photo, on the right, shows Pigeon's Egg Head after his return from Washington. It is clear that in the time between the two depictions, Pigeon's Egg Head has changed drastically. He wears a military uniform, probably given to him as a gift (as George Catlin notes). In place of his war eagle's feathers, he wears instead a "high-crowned beaver hat", decorated with an absurdly large, red feather. Coming out of his two coat pockets are bottles of alcohol. In the painting he seems to lean unsteadily onto his umbrella, indicating that he is probably drunk. It is clear in these paintings what a negative change Pigeon's Egg Head has gone through during his trip to Washington. He's gone from being proud and respectable looking, to a drunk, foppishly dressed in his new suit and top hat.

   George Catlin's narrative also describes Pigeon's Egg Head demeanor both before and after his trip to Washington, and how drastically he changed. Catlin writes, "In his nature's uncowering pride he stood the perfect model," reinforcing the paintings show of how proud Pigeon's Egg Head seemed. Catlin also notes that Pigeon's Egg Head was afraid to go on this trip, and had to be coaxed into it, but stood bravely against his fears. But upon his return from Washington, Pigeon's Egg Head seems to have "metamorphosed." Catlin describes how ridiculous Pigeon's Egg Head looks in his new dress, calling him a "puss in boots." Along with his ridiculous dress, Pigeon's Egg Head's personality has also changed. He's become addicted to alcohol, drinking heavily and stumbling around the Indian camp, telling drunken stories. For days he made a fool of himself without even knowing it. It is clear that the White Man's influences has changed Pigeon's Egg Head's personality for the worse.

   Pigeon's Egg Head's interaction with his tribe, as described in Catlin's narrative, shows the extreme and violent clash of cultures between the Native Americans and the White Man. The Native Americans are unable to comprehend most of the White Man's culture that they learn about. This is evident in Pigeon's Egg Head's tribe's reaction to the stories he tells; for them, Pigeon's Egg Head's stories (which are actually true) are too different from their own culture for them to understand, and end up believing that Pigeon's Egg Head is first a liar, and then later a medicine man, full of fanciful tales, and after that, an evil wizard and again a liar. What customs the Native Americans could see and understand, they had little respect for. This can be seen from the beginning of the narrative, in which Pigeon's Egg Head is described as having visible contempt for the trip he has to go on. As Pigeon's Egg Head's tribe see's what the White Man's culture has done to him, their disrespect is further increased. In the end, the White Man's influences on Pigeon's Egg Head that created first a disrespect for him, and later a fear of him by his tribe that he is killed under the belief the the tribe must be protected from his sorcery.

   Pigeon's Egg Head's tale is a small but perfect example of the clash of cultures between the White Man and the Native Americans. Just as Pigeon's Egg Head's way of life was changed negatively by the White Man's influence, so was the Native American way of life as a whole. This is evident from the the negative impact of the French fur trade on Nations like the Hurons and the Iroquois, to the Indian Removal Act during the Jacksonian period, to the westward expansion in the late 1800's [1]. The incrompehension of and disrespect for each other's cultures is not just evident only in Pigeon's Egg Head's tale, but also in another narrative by George Catlin. The narrative describes a conversaion Catlin had once with a Sioux cheif, in which the Cheif asks him about many White customs which the Sioux were completely unable to comprehend or understand. What the Sioux could understand, they had little to no respect for. Catlin notes at the end of his conversation that his "civilized world" practiced a hundred barbarous acts against the Native Americans. Acts that the Native Americans, though considered to be "cruel and relentless savage(s)," would never have reciprocated on the White Man [2].

Works Cited:

1. Abbott, C., Anderson, V., Argersinger, J., Argersinger, P., Barney, W., Goldfield, D., Weir, R. The American Journey: A History of the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

2. Abbott, C., Anderson, V., Argersinger, J., Argersinger, P., Barney, W., Goldfield, D., Weir, R. The American Journey: A History of the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

Blog Post #1: Katherine's a Little Too Comfortable...

   In "A Chesapeake Afternoon Mystery," a peculiar detail of the story seems to stand out: the promiscuous behavior of Katherine Watkins. In the 17th century, women and men were seen as unequals. Men were more free to behave as they chose, while women had to observe more stringent social laws. There was also an inequality between the races; white people were seen as better than black people, and a mingling between the races was discouraged. Under these social conditions, why did Katherine think that her actions wouldn't be held against her in her court proceedings?  Katherine's Quacker beliefs, which differed socially from most other religious beliefs at the time, could have given her the impression that she would be treated equally. At the time the "Chesapeake Afternoon Mystery" took place, it was common for slaves, and working class white people to intermingle. Katherine's Quacker beliefs, and the social interactions between the races (which Katherine clearly took part in), led Katherine to believe that  her actions  were not something that would be held against her in court.

   Early Quaker beliefs had radical social implications, and may had an effect on how Katherine behaved. Quakers believed that all humans were spiritually equal. While Quaker women were still highly dependent on men, they still enjoyed more rights than other women, such as the equal right to freedom of speech. Quakers also rejected the idea of social status, claiming that such a thing was "not the work of God" [1]. Therefore, they did not recognize social norms such as class distinction. Quakers were also non-judgemental about sex. They saw sex as a gift from God; it was the way in which people used sex that Quakers focused on [2]. With these beliefs, Katherine's sexual practices would still probably have been looked downn upon, but would not have the same stigma as in other religions.

   Although slave codes were instituted in Virginia by the 1660s, the social switch to a total separation of races did not take place until the early 1700s. As evident in "A Chesapeake Afternoon Mystery," intermingling between the races was quite common. Just as seemingly common was sexual interaction between the races, resulting in mulatto births. The American Journey states that plantation owners treated their white indentured servants much the same as they would treat slaves [3]. On these plantations, white and black servants worked in close contact. Under these conditions, the status of slave, and the status of the white working class became practically equal, which further contributed to the mingling of races. With the two races existing so closely to each other, it's not surprising that such familiar interaction between Katherine and Thomas Cocke's black slaves would not have seemed so taboo to her.

   The era that "A Chesapeake Afternoon Mystery" took place in was an era of fluctuating social norms. Colonialism created a mix of different social and religious groups, all with their own rules of behavior. As society was evolving in 17th century Virginia, these differing social norms were sure to clash with each other from time to time. Katherine Watkins 's situation occurred at one of those times. When women and men were treated differently in most organized religions at the time, Katherine came from a religion that allowed women a little more freedom. When more and more harsh rules were being put into place regarding slavery, Katherine came from a social group that interacted with slaves on a regular basis. These differences made Katherine's actions, which for her would seem perfectly normal, actions that were looked down upon by other people involved in the case.

Works Cited:

1. Abbott, C., Anderson, V., Argersinger, J., Argersinger, P., Barney, W., Goldfield, D., Weir, R. The American Journey: A History of the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

2. Religion & Ethics- Christianity, Quakers. British Broadcasting Company. 14 Sept. 2007 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/quakers_6.shtml>

3. Abbott, C., Anderson, V., Argersinger, J., Argersinger, P., Barney, W., Goldfield, D., Weir, R. The American Journey: A History of the United States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007.

Lorem ipsum

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Nullam in odio sed sapien sollicitudin ullamcorper. Mauris eget turpis dignissim odio imperdiet volutpat. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Morbi augue arcu, venenatis ultrices, nonummy ac, viverra vel, orci. Morbi venenatis magna et est. Fusce ultrices orci quis pede. Nam tristique blandit sem. Quisque interdum, dolor eget commodo pulvinar, mi ligula tempus nunc, eu ultrices sem neque in arcu. Donec semper, neque non condimentum sollicitudin, dui justo sodales dui, a faucibus sapien dui vel justo. Nam dolor. Suspendisse placerat sollicitudin mauris. Pellentesque adipiscing. Nunc blandit, augue nec vulputate pellentesque, felis nunc facilisis neque, at posuere orci odio quis sapien. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam turpis augue, ullamcorper at, iaculis at, tempor nec, eros. Maecenas eget pede tincidunt lectus feugiat posuere. Vivamus mauris.

   Sed sollicitudin lacinia quam. Curabitur ac justo quis felis congue eleifend. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nullam quis nulla. Nullam non quam non lacus pretium ultrices. Integer erat nisi, cursus non, congue eget, facilisis eu, mauris. Fusce commodo ligula id magna. Aliquam luctus velit vel pede. Sed orci neque, rhoncus et, aliquet ac, suscipit eu, massa. Aenean in metus. Vestibulum adipiscing auctor pede. In malesuada, nibh quis eleifend semper, justo felis fringilla mauris, quis semper tortor diam ut nulla. Aliquam gravida, lectus ut sodales egestas, turpis mi tincidunt est, quis aliquam risus leo eget sapien. Pellentesque pharetra eros mattis nisl. Suspendisse dapibus dignissim tellus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Etiam turpis. Donec in diam non eros viverra ornare.

Actual Intro

Hi, I'm Cristen. This blog is for my History 120 class. I go to George Mason University, and I'm a Political Science major. I've lived in NOVA my entire life, thought one day I hope to live in D.C. After I receive my bachelor's degree, I plan to get a graduate degree for political science. And one day, hopefully, I'd like to go into politics and be an elected official.