Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Service Learning Questions


1.)  I coordinated communication and planning of assembling the Goody Bags.

2.)  Pros:

·         Giving back to the community

·         Bringing smiles to faces

     Cons:

·         Lots of planning

3.)  Because I couldn’t actually be there for the event, I didn’t learn very much about poverty, hunger, sickness, generosity, raising awareness, compassion, or fair housing.

4.)  Refer to above…NGO’s

5.)  I think the general level of public interest in poverty, hunger, sickness, etc. is very low. I didn’t get to see how the people who volunteered for these organizations were generous or not.

6.)  I learned that I enjoy helping people, and even though I’m often busy, I can still help in the planning stage. I think groups in this regards are wayyyyy more powerful than an individual.

7.)  I think that the fun day really helped out the orphans and probably made their month. From the picture, they seemed super happy and excited to be spending time with people rather than merely getting gifts.

8.)  World issues can be addressed at the local level, but I don’t think one group can make a world of difference around the globe, I only think they can make a world of difference for a person or family at one time. However, I also think it is difficult for one group to address global issues with the government and make a difference in a short period of time. These paths takes years to accomplish, so for purposes of this class, local issues are better.

 

Monday, November 19, 2012

Thomas Wentworth Higginson’s Slave Songs and Spirituals

Thomas Wentworth Higginson’s Slave Songs and Spirituals

Pages 112-117

Thomas Wentworth Higginson starts off by acknowledging where he heard these slave songs and how they made him and other feel. He also noticed that many of them were dissimilar to each other depending on the region. They all had similar tones and sounds, just different messages and structure. Thus he goes on to examine specific songs.

The first one: “Hold Your Light,” he said “would be sung for half an hour at a time, perhaps, each person present being named in turn” (Page 114). “Hold your light, [insert name here], Hold your light, Hold your light on Canaan’s shore” (Page 113).

“Another picturesque song, which seemed immensely popular, was at first very bewildering to me. I could not make out the first words of the chorus, and called it the ‘Romandar,’ being reminded of some Romanic song which I had formerly heard” (Page 114). It’s interesting to note that to the common white folk, it was difficult to tell exactly what the slave songs were singing because the accent was exaggerated in song. “O, my mudder is gone! my mudder is gone! My mudder is gone into heaven, my Lord! I can’t stay behin! Dere’s room in dar, room in dar, Room in dar, in de heaven, my lord! I can’t stay behind, Can’t stay behind, my dear, I can’t stay behind!” (Page 114). Then the song would repeat with “Oh, my fader is gone!” and “O, de angels are gone!” (Page 115).

It is difficult to feel the full effect of how these songs made people feel without hearing them with one’s own ears. Kyle F. made the following powerful youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7ejJPp8wdU.

“Almost all their songs were thoroughly religious in their tone, however quaint their expression, and were in a minor key, both as to words and music. The attitude is always the same, and as a commentary on the life of the race, is infinitely pathetic. Nothing but patience for this life, --nothing but triumph in the next. Sometimes the present predominates, sometimes the future; but the combination is always implied. In the following, for instance, we hear simply the patience” (Page 117).

I enjoyed this song because I remember seeing the film in class. In the film, it explained that when the slaves were escaping to freedom, sometimes they had to cross a specific river, and if they saw one lamp burning, they were free to cross, but if they saw two lamps, it was unsafe and they wouldn’t be protected if they crossed the river. “Brudder, keep your lamp trimmin’ and a-burnin’, Keep your lamp trimmin’ and a-burnin’, Keep your lamp trimmin’ and a-burnin’, For dis world most done. So keep your lamp, &c. Dis world most done” (Page 117). It’s also common that whenever someone is kidnapped or missing from home, that the owners of that home will keep their lamp burning or their porch lights on so that the missing always know that they are missed and still welcome home if they ever find their way back home. I think this song might have been inspired by this idea as well.

Monday, November 12, 2012

The American Anti-Slavery Society Declares Its Sentiments, From The Liberator


The American Anti-Slavery Society Declares Its Sentiments, From The Liberator

By William Lloyd Garrison

Pages 329-333

This piece was written to ask for the immediate freedom of all slaves, black or white, on the basis of principle. At first, the article would talk about the Declaration of Independence and then it would talk about specific points and arguments within and outside of the Declaration as more reasons why slaves deserve freedom. In a way, this paper is in itself another Declaration of Independence. 

“The corner-stone upon which they founded the Temple of Freedom was broadly this—‘That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY         , and the pursuit of happiness’” (Page 329). All Americans at least have some part of this excerpt of the Declaration learned by heart, either because we had to learn it in school, or simply because we’ve heard the phrases over and over again. Either way, Americans today don’t really analyze what any of this means. To us, it means that soldiers fight for us to be free, to live, and to try and be happy. However, Americans in this time period always analyzed the Declaration and realized that they have the right to live, the right of liberty to hold property, and to pursue happiness. Even the way it was written in the times disregarded slaves in that they could NOT hold property, and how ever could they attain happiness being a slave?

Garrison even compares the American Revolution to what would be their own revolution: “Their measures were physical resistance—the marshalling in arms—the hostile array—the mortal encounter. Ours shall be such only as the opposition of moral purity to moral corruption—the destruction of error by the potency of truth—the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love—and the abolition of slavery by the spirit of repentance” (Page 330). Garrison continues in a fashion that almost seems disapproving of the American Revolution because they didn’t have a worthy cause, in his opinion. “Their grievances, great as they were, were trifling in comparison with the wrongs and sufferings of those for whom we plead. Our fathers were never slaves—never bought and sold like cattle—never shut out from the light of knowledge and religion—never subjected to the lash of brutal taskmasters” (Page 330). Garrison then appeals to the reader’s sense of ethos and pathos by saying that slaves “are ruthlessly torn asunder—the tender babe from the arms of its frantic mother—the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband—at the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants. For the crime of having a dark complexion, they suffer the pangs of hunger, the infliction of stripes, the ignominy of brutal servitude. They are kept in heathenish darkness by laws expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal offence” (Page 330).

At this point, it is clear that Garrison is outraged by slavery. He goes on to say: “We further maintain—that no man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother—to hold or acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of merchandize—to keep back his hire by fraud—or to brutalize his mind, by denying him the means of intellectual, social and moral improvement. The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body—to the products of his own labor—to the protection of law—and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely, the sin is as great to enslave an American as an African” (Page 331). The piece then continues to immediately ask for the release of all slaves among other requests/demands.

Monday, November 5, 2012


An Address to the Public

Benjamin Franklin, Nov. 9, 1789


Pages 189-190 

Benjamin Franklin, although he had owned slaves, including Peter, he eventually saw the horrors of slavery and took on the mission of proving to the world that slavery was unjust and attempted to stop it. He even remarked: “Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils” (Page 189).  
 
Benjamin Franklin

I found it interesting how he basically pre-empted Social Darwinism by saying “The unhappy man, who has long been treated as a brute animal, too frequently sinks beneath the common standard of the human species. The galling chains, that bind his body, do also fetter his intellectual faculties, and impair the social affection of his heart” (Page 190). It is for reasons such as this, that he proposes a new plan. “Encouraged by this success, and by the daily progress of that luminous and benign spirit of liberty, which is diffusing itself throughout the world, and humbly hoping for the continuance of the divine blessing on our labours, we have ventured to make an important addition to our original plan, and do therefore earnestly solicit the support and assistance of all who can feel the tender emotions of sympathy and compassion, or relish the exalted pleasure of beneficence” (Page 189). 

Then, Franklin begins bashing slavery, saying it “is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils” (Page 189). He even slightly shows his emotions of slavery by explaining some of what slaves feel. This is quite interesting because you would most already know what slaves are going through and simply don’t care. By doing this, Franklin appeals to their ethos. “Accustomed to move like a mere machine, by the will of a master, reflection is suspended; he has not the power of choice; and reason and conscience have but little influence over his conduct, because he is chiefly governed by the passion of fear. He is poor and friendless; perhaps worn out by extreme labour, age, and disease” (Page 190). He then believes because they are so “accustomed” to this horrible lifestyle that it isn’t within their power to change or even want to change. “Under such circumstances, freedom may often prove a misfortune to himself, and prejudicial to society” (Page 190).  
 
Slave: Am I Not a Man and a Brother?

Franklin knows it would be difficult to have the whole country accept freeing all of the slaves overnight, so he at least hopes to raise awareness of the issue. “Attention to emancipated black people, it is therefore to be hoped, will become a branch of our national policy; but, as far as we contribute to promote this emancipation, so far that attention is evidently a serious duty incumbent on us, and which we mean to discharge to the best of our judgment and abilities” (Page 190). Not only is emancipation, what Franklin is proposing, a very radical idea for the time, he even goes on to say that it will help the national public good of society. “To instruct, to advise, to qualify those, who have been restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil liberty, to promote in them habits of industry, to furnish them with employments suited to their age, sex, talents, and other circumstances, and to procure their children an education calculated for their future situation in life; these are the great outlines of the annexed plan, which we have adopted, and which we conceive will essentially promote the public good, and the happiness of these our hitherto too much neglected fellow-creatures” (Page 190). As Ms. Quosigk would say, “Whoa!” What a powerful statement. It’s a wonder Franklin wasn’t assassinated for this hugely radical idea. The last paragraph is simply asking the general public to make donations to help their cause, which really makes me wonder how many people donated, and if so how much.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Thomas Paine's Common Sense Pages 177-179


Thomas Paine’s Common Sense Pages 177-179 
 

Thomas Paine

 
Common sense. One of the most popular pamphlets of American History. However, I feel as if in high school education, they just tell you about it and never have the students read it for themselves. Common Sense, in the intro, said that it had two purposes: “to make an appeal for the separation and independence of the American colonies from the British empire, and to propose the replacement of monarchy with a republican form of government” (Page 177). This is all high school students learn of Common Sense, but now we will learn more about some of the points he brought up as to why America should be free of the British Empire and why they should replace the monarchy with a republican form of government.

Before Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense the colonists had been advocating for separation from Britain and were attempting as best they could to do it peacefully. However, Pain mentioned: “As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards a compromise, we may not be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to” (Page 178). He goes on to say “but if the whole continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry only. Dearly, dearly, do we pay for the repeal of the acts, if that is all we fight for in a just estimation, it is as great a folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law, as for land” (Page 178). At first, Paine eased the reader into the situation, and now that they know the context, he is NOT holding back his feelings. This statement is really very powerful. All he really wants is for Britain to repeal their Acts: No Taxation Without Representation: the phrase all high school kids have memorized. However, he also believes that it is very silly to merely fight over one cause, so he will list other causes to try and persuade the loyalists to believe in his cause.
 
Photo Copy of Common Sense
 First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this continent. And as he hath shewn himself such an inveterate enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary powers, is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies, ‘You shall not make no laws but what I please’” (Pages 178-179). Here, Paine is trying to explain to the loyalists a specific point of why the King of Britain shouldn’t be governing over America. “Instead of going forward, we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarreling or ridiculously petitioning—We are already greater than the king wishes us to be, and will he not hereafter endeavour to make us less? To bring the matter to one point. Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No to this question, is an independent, for independency means no more, than, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hat, or can have, shall tell us ‘there shall be no laws but such as I like’” (Page 179). Paine, having no reservations, freely speaks his mind and denounces the king, for which he could be hanged if they came over from Britain to do so. However, Paine knows that this is a worthy cause and believes that their fight will be worth something very soon.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Major Problems in American Business History


From Major Problems in American Business History Pages 38-40

John Woolman’s Christian Conscience Impels Him to Leave Retailing, 1756

This reading was written by John Woolman who recounted his history in retail sales. Today, retail sales encompass any good sold in a store excluding food and hardware. However, in 1756, retail sales only accounted for linen, garments, cloths, etc. Woolman stated that “In merchandise it is the custom where I lived to sell chiefly on credit, and poor people often get in debt; when payment is expected, not having wherewith to pay, their creditors often sue for it at law. Having frequently observed occurrences of this kind, I found it good for me to advise poor people to take such goods as were most useful, and not costly” (Page 39). He also laments those men who drink and become reliant on alcohol to be happy in their lives. “Every degree of luxury hath some connection with evil; and if those who profess to be disciples of Christ, and are looked upon as leaders of the people, have that mind in them which was also in Christ, and so stand separate from every wrong way, it is a means of help to the weaker” (Page 40).

 


I found this reading really interesting in that Woolman only spent one to three paragraphs describing what he does and who he is. The majority of the work is Woolman offering his opinions on his customers and people in general. For Woolman to be truly invested in the general welfare and financial health of his customers I found to be truly inspirational. This was during a time where capitalism was starting to plant its seed and everyone was out for themselves. One would assume that Woolman would have been the classical “salesman” to survive during this time, especially considering that credit was already an option for payment during this time, which I truly found to be interesting. “Then I lessened my outword business, and, as I had opportunity, told my customers of my intentions, that they might consider what shop to turn to; and in a while I wholly laid down merchandise, and followed my trade as a tailor by myself, having no apprentice” (Page 39). Secondly, he spent many paragraphs describing his opinions of people who drink. He truly felt sad and sorry for those who felt the need to drink alcohol to be successful or happy in life. “And where those whose lives are for the most part regular, and whose examples have a strong influence on the minds of others, adhere to some customs which powerfully draw to the use of more strong liquor than pure wisdom allows, it hinders the spreading of the spirit of meekness, and strengthens the hands of the more excessive drinkers. This is a case to be lamented” (Page 40). He did admit to sometimes giving into this vice, but not very often. “As I have sometimes been much spent in the heat and have taken spirits to revive me, I have found by experience, that in such circumstances the mind is not so calm, nor so fitly disposed for Divine meditation, as when all such extremes are avoided….a selfish spirit takes place in the minds of people, which is attended with darkness and manifold confusions in the world.” Denouncing drinking I felt was quite common at this time, but to admit to one’s problems I felt is quite uncommon. I found it truly brave for Woolman to accept his own problems and mistakes and care about the nature and welfare of his customers and other people more than he ever cared about his own.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Childhood in Puritan New England


Childhood in Puritan New England
 
Title: The Primary Materials of History: Childhood in Puritan New England
Pages 24-33

This piece was made to persuade the audience to examine their childhood and compare and contrast it with the way Puritans were raised. Not only would the audience see differences, but it is also meant to have the audience ask questions of themselves and dig further into the Puritan way of life outside of only children. To make the selection easier to read, it was broken up into two different sections: Portraits and Written Evidence.

Portraits

It was really interesting to see portraits of Puritan Children and how they differ from portraits taken today. Obviously, they didn’t have any cameras to use, so artists would paint their likeness. We all like to look nice for our photos, so normally we dress up. Same was true for Puritans. We normally like to have a pleasant expression on our face, such as smiling; however, Puritans wanted their children to specifically not smile. The author even asks us to think about why this would be. I believe it’s because “having fun” was almost considered a sin during this time period for this cultural group. If you were too happy, you were probably sinning and needed to confess. Therefore, in order to portray that you were not sinning, your portrait was taken without a smile on your face. This also might portray that their society wasn’t focused on material happiness but inner, private happiness.
 
Written Evidence

I found it really interesting to read how well the children of this era wrote, some even better than adults I know. Absolutely, this 12 year old writes better than any 12 year old I know. Also, it makes me wonder why he would be writing to his father? They probably live together, so why not just talk to him? Since the subject matter deals with God, he probably did something he wasn’t supposed to do and was therefore forced to write a letter to his father to repent.

The Court Records really surprised me. “If any child[ren] above sixteen years old and of sufficient understanding shall curse or smite their natural father or mother, they shall be put to death, unless it can be sufficiently testified that the parents have been very unchristianly negligent in the education of such children, or so provoked them by extreme and cruel correction that they have been forced thereunto to preserve themselves from death or maiming…” PUT TO DEATH?? For saying something bad about your parents??? I would be killed by now, that’s for sure. I remember there was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where the crew visited a planet that no matter what law you broke, you were put to death. The planet was insanely happy all the time and had absolutely no crime, which is simply unheard of in human society. So when Wesley Crusher decided he wanted to walk on the grass and had no idea it was a law, he was then sentenced to death. This was the main conflict of this episode and had to be resolved through compromise between the two societies. My guess is that this was the same principal for the Puritans. “If we just threaten death, then they won’t commit the crime.” Seems really harsh for us, but the author said that the sentence was never served, so they must have been doing something right.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

The Great Awakening: A Brief History with Documents


The Great Awakening: A Brief History with Documents

Thomas S. Kidd

Pages 43-73

 

This reading was a culmination of primary source documents from the 1730s to the 1740s regarding different people’s views of religion. The documents included journals, ads, sermons, declarations, pictures, and diaries. Kidd put together these documents to help the reader come to their own conclusions about religion in the 1730s and 1740s to the common people and to the nobles.

I feel as if most people during this time period felt that God didn’t inherently love everyone and no one was ever worthy of his love because they were so filled with sin. In George Whitefield’s journal, he commented to the reader: You lied, not unto man, but unto God.” Others merely begin to question their faith. “How can we be led by the Spirit or have Joy in the Holy Ghost, without some sensible Perceptions of it!” (Josiah Smith) In Yale College’s “The Declaration of the Rector and Tutors”, I was particularly surprised by, “Another Principle which you have advanced, is, That all unconverted Ministers are half Beasts and half Devils, and can no more be the Means of any Man’s Conversion, than a dead Man can beget a living Child.” So not only were people questioning their faith, they completely denounced other’s faiths. I find this completely hypocritical; in fact, I find most of this time period hypocritical. So many people would argue with other people, claiming that they know the absolute truth in everything, even if other people provided them with evidence to the contrary. While reading these documents, I couldn’t help but think of watching “Luther” a film about Martin Luther becoming a Monk and a heretic. Watching it nowadays, we all know that he brought up some excellent points and was right about many things, especially indulgences. To us, the idea that someone could absolve themselves of sins or free their ancestors from purgatory because they paid money to someone is completely absurd. To us, we believe that you must confess your sins, show repentance, apologize, etc. to help wash away your sins. When Luther posted his “Truths” he genuinely thought that he was correct and that the Church was not only wrong, but they were scamming people, committing sin themselves in the name of the Church. Luther was the first person to show that the Church was the Pot calling the Kettle black. The Church preyed on those who thought they were damned. “What shall I do to be saved?” “Natural Men, not having true Love to Christ and the Souls of their Fellow-Creatures, hence their Discourses are cold and sapless, and as it were freeze between their Lips! And not being sent of GOD, they want that divine Authority, with which the faithful Ambassadors of Christ are clothed, who herein resemble their blessed Master [Jesus].” This was a time of people stepping out of the norm, and if these people didn’t make the changes they did, who knows where we would be today? It’s weird to think of what my family might have believed if we had been around during that time. Who knows, maybe even I would have been paying indulgences to free my Great Grandmother from purgatory.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Chapter 2: The Cloister


The Cloister pages 26-32. 

 

This part of the chapter begins with descriptions of fasting and Lent performed by Martin Luther. Martin Luther said he enjoyed Lent even more than Easter because of his vigils and prayers to make up for his sins. The historians of Martin Luther believe because he liked Lent so much, he must have sinned greatly.
I personally think it’s really interesting to think that Martin Luther, a figure that everyone knows and looks up to for making his mark on history, could have been a big sinner. I don’t think of my priest as sinning a lot, only every now and then. I mean, shouldn’t they be close to perfect? They’re our role models to not sin. So if they sin all the time, what are we to do? Just go to confession? Confession does cleanse our souls, but it’s not meant to be an excuse for us to sin all we want to. So if these are the rules that govern us, what are the rules that govern our priests? What are the rules that governed Martin Luther? What made him think that just by fasting for “three days without a crumb” he can wipe away all his sin? “Sins must be accounted for one by one.” So when did he account for all his sins? One every day, hour, minute?
I also find it interesting to think of someone basically torturing themselves. When’s the last time any of us even went one whole day without eating anything? When is the last time during winter any of us slept without a blanket or heating of some sort? Also, when is the last time any of us had the pride to say “I have done nothing wrong today”? Just today I went to go see a movie at the Palladium, and one of the guys on the golf cart gave me a ride from my car to the front. It was the first time this ever happened to me, and I was taken a bit aback, so much so that I didn’t even think if a tip was expected. I didn’t even think about it until it was too late, and it’s 11 pm, a few hours after the incident, and I still feel sorry. I know it may seem silly, it’s not like he carried my bags or helped me up and out of the cart, but he did give me a ride. Maybe he works off of tips and I stiffed him. I don’t know. So, I know I sure can’t say “I have done nothing wrong today.” Even if it’s not something physical, if it’s mental, it’s still wrong. We’ve all had those moments where we’ve thought mean and ill things about someone else. Most of the time, I’ll try to stop myself from thinking these thoughts, but when they emerge, I try to think of something else pleasant, often times about the person in question. Luther said, “I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I.” If we all tried a little harder every day to stick closely to our “rules of order” we can prevent squabbles, fights, and even wars.
 We should use other’s previous thoughts and actions to help guide the way. I know this may not seem like an analysis of history, but to me what we think about ourselves and our actions today will become history tomorrow.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Introduction

Alexandra Fields

 
 

What you should know about me

I'm an 18 year old woman who absolutely loves life, family, friends, and (believe it or not) school and work. My passion is theatre and performing arts which leads to my dream of becoming a professional actress. I've been working since I was 14. I can't imagine not working, not learning, and not being involved in some sort of performing arts. Along with theatre, I enjoy modelling (no high fashion, because I'm too short) for things like photo shoots and hair shows. When I'm not super busy (which is pretty much never), I enjoy being with my family, and my adorable puppies: Buster (the yellow lab mix with a red tick hound, who is technically my sister-Lauren) and Coco (the poodle, who is technically mine). Oh, and they're much bigger now than in these pictures. 
 

And Now for History

I would define History as the retelling of the past. None of us can ever know if our "Facts" are 100% correct about anything, even about ourselves, and especially the past and history. Think about those memories you have about a time you met someone, your first kiss, and how many times you've thought about that one moment. When you repeatedly brought up this event in your mind, how many times did it change? I know for me, it's pretty much every time. Everyone knows about the telephone game, but no one really thinks that it happens with themselves. I've always had a difficult time learning history. It's hard for me to relate to it, honestly, and I just plain enjoy math, science, and literature more. Math and science I enjoy because you can get to an answer, or at least follow the right path. Literature, you just pick an opinion and stick to it. Easy enough. History, everyone thinks they are right, except for you. Most teachers in high school claimed to know everything. They don't. They weren't there. I love how college professors admit to not knowing everything and admit that even they have a personal bias. The most we can ever hope to achieve is to be presented or present the most true facts that we can about this thing we call history. I also have learned that for myself, I don't really like reading history textbooks. There are other textbooks I actually do like reading, just not history because they claim to know it all and be right. If I'm going to read about history, I prefer it to be intentionally fictional in nature while telling some historical data, then I at least know it's not perfect but trying to tell a story. I also prefer having someone just talking to me about history, like in museums or people telling me what they believe about a certain event. In this context, I actually find it more believable because they know they're not telling the 100% truth. When I first read the portion of the textbook, I wasn't really looking for instances where I could tell "this is an opinion" because I just believe a lot of textbooks are opinions. My HIS 1053 teacher today was telling us about a Mississippi textbook from the 1950s or so that said that most slaves were treated as princes. Ok, some were, but not enough to qualify as most. Therefore=opinion. But this is something that most of us have come to agree on. There are enough primary sources that show us otherwise. However, there are still many events that don't have that much documentation to prove our main "Fact" to be false, so we believe it. To comment on the statement: "History is an argument" I completely agree. Everyone is just trying to prove themselves right and everyone else wrong, even if they are wrong themselves. Historians I would qualify as being very prideful, and because of this pride, they are unwilling to compromise themselves for the truth. I must say now that there are some historians that admit to not knowing everything, aren't prideful, and do compromise themselves. This is simply my opinion. I think now that I've realized this, I might begin to enjoy history more, but probably only if I hear it told as just a story.