Rip: a Lazy Bum's Idol

"Rip Van Winkle" is the truly inspirational story of how a man was able to sleep for twenty years and do nothing.  Rip uses his ingenuity to outsmart hardworking people.  Rather than working on his own farm, he does other people's small errands so that he'll be liked by everyone, except his wife.
Rip Van Winkle was able to gain his independence by doing nothing.  The Revolution didn't happen for Rip, and it wasn't a part of his life.  This part struck me most.  I'm sure there were people who were active in the Revolution and fought, but there were also probably people who waited around to see what happened.  Rip was in his own egocentric world, and he never quite got out of it.  His character remained static throughout the story. The twenty years that could have changed Rip went missing.  I think if people didn't have major changes then their lives would become routine and stale much like Rip's life.  The phrase, "life just passes you by"  comes to mind.  The world moved on without Rip Van Winkle, and it's sad in reality.  He missed out on all the important parts of his children's lives.  His wife died, but Rip never liked her much anyways.
After his nap in the mountains, Rip Van Winkle wakes up to find things a little different.  This story seems to be one big metaphor for life. I think many people can relate to him here.  Many changes seem like they happened in a instant or over night.  The reality is different from what the mind sometimes projects.  Rip's overall philosophy of life is similar to a great deal of other people's philosophy.  I think Rip Van Winkle is a universal character, a classic archetype.   
When I was younger, I thought this was a sad story about a man who had lost twenty years of his life.  I empathized with old Rip.  Now I see that he doesn't do much, and that he prefers his new life, without his wife.  Rip just likes telling stories and drinking without being bothered.
We never actually learn much about Rip.  He doesn't speak often, so his character is just a stand-in for something else.  We learn about some of his actions, but these are all external.  In most folklore of this type, there's a moral or a lesson to be learned, so deep character development gets overlooked.  Rip Van Winkle has no agency of his own, and that's how it was meant to be.
"Rip Van Winkle" the fantastically true story of how a man go drunk and passed out.  He is to many an idol, a wise sage for generations to follow.        

Declaration of Independence Changes

The Declaration was drafted by Jefferson, but it went through major revisions before it was approved by the Continental Congress.  Most of the deletions mentions cutting Great Britain out of the colonies entirely.  The Congress seemed to believe that they shouldn't antagonize the king or Great Britain.  I believe this is why they use the word "Independence."  It is not as provocative a word as "freedom."  The colonies had ties with Great Britain, and I believe they are acknowledging the fact.  The Congress was not trying to deny that their mother country was Great Britain.  Instead, they wanted to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another."
One marked change was the word '"inherent' inalienable rights" to "certain."  This seems like an odd change to make.  The original would imply that these were rights every human was entitled to or born with.  Perhaps they wanted to say that we had to work for our rights, and that the Revolution wasn't a moot point because man was owed those rights from the beginning.  If these rights were so "inherent," then there was no point in fighting the Revolution.  I think that the Founding Fathers wanted people to view life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as valuable things.  If they are fought for, they aren't taken for granted.
Most of Jefferson's personal biases are taken out of the document.  Without these additions, the Declaration is more focused and neutral. 
The Declaration of Independence was a document that helped form a country.  It is the basis of American doctrines, and it named the rights of man.  The lines "all men are created equal" have been the cause of many wars and conflicts within America.  This one phrases sums up the Revolution, the Civil War, and basically all other wars that followed.  It's a bit of a haunting phrase, and it is unmistakeably a powerful one.
In the footnotes, Garry Willis says that Jefferson meant all men were equal in a moral sense.  If the Declaration had gone with Locke's idea of "property" as human right, it would have been a little easier to define equality.  But Jefferson takes it out of the physical realm, and he talks about something far beyond what even he comprehended.
I wonder if Jefferson knew her would write the Declaration for future generations.  I'm sure he had an idea of the magnitude of its importance.  His original draft wasn't as polished, but it probably resonated with the public.  The revised copy encompasses all of man. It could be applied to people who weren't from the colonies.  I'm not sure that he knew how much change and debate his words brought, but there's no doubt it's a great piece of history.             

Pennsylvania Gazette

I have read through a few articles from the Gazette, and what struck me most was the variety of things published in the newspaper.   I noticed the abundant amount of advertisements, which ranged from goods to "wanted" ads. Perhaps this was the way the newspaper was funded.  One of the advertisements was for a missing man who had stolen a horse.  Another was selling his musket.  It seems like all sorts of people used the paper.  I imagine that the newspapers were the only form of mass media for the public.  It seems like it was printed quite often, so this was probably the best way to spread information.  These presses are operated by hand, so it must have been a lot of work to print just one issue.  The physical copies of the issues were sloppy, but the volume of things published was impressive.
The other thing that caught my interest was the poem on the January 10, 1749 issue. All forms of writing came together in a newspaper.  It wasn't limited to just articles or advertisements. The author of the poem is not published, but I'm guessing it was written by Franklin. The poem has a different tone from the Puritan ones we've seen.  A few lines of the poem read "yet weather all the storms that blow;/To lead me to the peaceful shore,/ My God and guide still before!"(Divine Presence) These lines summarize the rest of the poem. Basically, the poet is saying the God will always be there to guide people through troubles.  In contrast to Bradstreet, this poem doesn't talk about troubles or afflictions as God's love.  It seems as though the view of affliction has shifted from 100 years earlier. Franklin believed in Deism rather than affliction, which said that God created the world and left the people to their own devices.  This line of reasoning seems to fit with Franklin's love of science as well as his belief in God.
I tried going all the way to the last issues, and it seems like the Pennsylvania Gazette had name changes or didn't publish through the revolution.  I found one article about about the battle of Lexington and Concord.  These kinds of articles were meant to rile up the revolutionists, which I think might have worked.  I'm impressed with the power of the media to change people's opinions and spread information.  Even in the 1700's, it was still a powerful force.    

 

The Psychology of Puritans

From the accounts and stories we've read, the Puritans seem to be almost forcing themselves into believing the "Doctrine of Affliction."  Rowlandson hints at her doubts, but she never says it outright.  She notes some "remarkable passages of providence" in her time with the Indians. ( 128) She mentions how she didn't see any Indians die of hunger and how they evaded the English army, remarkably.  In this same paragraph, she calls the Indians "heathen," even though she says that they survived because of the providence of God. It doesn't seem logical the the Indians have divine providence, yet they aren't considered Christians to Rowlandson.
At the end, Rowlandson says "before I knew what affliction meant, I was ready sometimes to wish for it." (134)  It seems as though the Puritans wanted affliction, but once they received it, they found out they didn't want it.  To go through horrible things and say it was a good thing, I can understand why the Puritans thought that way.  However, to have to be glad your child died and half your village killed just to become a better person is ridiculous. Either the Puritans were heartless, or they're in denial.  They attribute everything good and bad that happens to God.  I don't think they see the human side of these afflictions.  It was humans who killed her neighbors, and it was humans who let her go.  Rowlandson says God allowed her to escape, but really, it was tobacco and material things that won her freedom.  It was the vanity of the Indians that allowed her to escape.
Another reason why I'm not convinced of the Puritan way of thinking is because of the witch trials.  The Puritans didn't understand anything of diseases, and they didn't take their own biases into account.  In Cotton Mather's piece, Martha Carrier is accused of doing witchcraft.  If read closely, all the evidence is conjecture and anecdotal.  The people who accused Martha had some previous squabble with her.  The Puritans seemed to mold their surroundings to their own beliefs.  If something happens that they don't understand, then they will find whatever explanation fits them.  Any disruption into their beliefs will cause dissonance.  To maintain harmony, rather than changing their beliefs, they prefer to create a world where they're right.  The "cognitive dissonance theory" was proposed by Festinger.  According to him, the need to avoid this discomfort leads to irrational behaviors. The Salem Witch Trials were a prime example of that.