American Literature CLOG: Crèvecoeur vs. Winthrop

American Literature CLOG: Crèvecoeur vs. Winthrop: Crèvecoeur and Winthrop clearly have very different views of the New World, and of what distinguishes it from Europe. However, in my opinion Crevecouer is looking for opportunities for the settlers in the new country. He also describes that America is an melting pot of people who came from Europe and Africa etc. Futhermore his vision is closer to the way the Americans think of themselves now because America have a lot of people from all over the world and it began in the 17th century when English, Dutch, Spanisch, German, Swedish,...people came abroad to feel as freemen and get a uncomplicated lifestyle.

Crèvecoeur vs. Winthrop

Crèvecoeur and Winthrop clearly have very different views of the New World, and of what distinguishes it from Europe.  However, I'd argue that both of their visions of America/Americans are still alive in our time/our culture.  So, I'm curious:  which vision do you think is closer to the way we think of ourselves now and how so/why?

Anne Bradsreet and Feminism

Today in class we discussed Anne Bradstreet and feminism. While we were able to talk about how men believed that Bradstreet's writing ability was rare for women, or how Bradstreet was an exception to women writers, and was the only woman who could write in a style and at a level that only men displayed in the 17th century, I feel like we didn't pay attention the fact that Anne could have been starting a new view of women her own. Reading the first two pages of the prologue, the main idea that was coming from the class was that the author believed that Bradstreet was an excellent writer, but she was the only woman that had that ability, and it shouldn't have been assumed that any other woman could write at he level. When I read the first two pages, I thought that the author was trying to get across the fact that maybe there are women who can write just as well as men, and not just Bradstreet. I believe that he was explaining that the obvious writer with talent that was superior to most men was Bradstreet, but that men should also keep an open mind and begin to accept what women had to write. If a piece of literature is interesting and enjoyable to a man, he should accept that work whether it was written by a man or woman. The author, I thought, was only using an example of an exceptional woman writer. Bradstreet, in my opinion, was at the beginning of starting a revolution for women, by showing that woman, and herself, have goals, ideas, and the capability to be an excellent writer. In Bradstreet's "The Author to Her Book", you are able to get and idea of how Bradstreet was never completely satisfied with her writing, since her ideas were always growing and he goals were always becoming more of a challenge. In conclusion, I think that the prologue's first two pages was not saying that Bradstreet was an exception, but that she was an example, and that this could have been a start to feminism in the 17th century, not just a society that looked at Bradstreet as the only acceptable woman writer. Do you the society was becoming more feminist, or do you thin that Bradstreet was just an exception? Do you think other men had faith that since Bradstreet had the talent to write well there could possibly other women who could write well?

John Winthrop

Yesterday in class we dissussed about John Winthrop's, "Modell of Christian Charity", and i was thinking are there any similarites and/or differences between his work and the early american poams we read? I found that in "The Author to Her Book", the author did not mention the the Christan God whish I thought was unusal becuase it was a puritain author. Did you guys find any differences and/or similarites??

Christopher Columbus

So before reading Columbus's letter to Luis de Santangel, I would have NEVER thought of Columbus's discovery to be anything but positive. However, after doing the activity assigned in class, I got a new perspective on Columbus's ways of colonizing and 'discovering' the Americas. The way that Columbus just assumed he could take over the Natives, because they were so weak, really shocked me. He assumed they wanted to leave their own lifestyles and convert to Christianity, becoming just another carbon copy of those in Spain. Could you imagine if someone stormed into your life (who seemed very friendly and giving) and took advantage of you? What if your life and the way you lived was completely changed because someone else took your weakness as a chance to convert you to something you might not want to become?