Week 10! blog

I thought the images and other materials from around Hull House were very interesting and showed a lot about community. I noticed that there was no real strong collection of incomes in a specific area from the 1st wage map. There was a lot of distribution of colors (incomes) for the small area and it did not seem like there was a strong concentration of different wages in different areas. There was definite separation of people based on ethnicity though. There was an overwhelming population of Italian, African American, and Bohemian people. It was interesting because the groups would be spread out for most of the area, just like in the wage map, but there were a few sections where there were dense populations of one ethnic group. For example in the 1st ethnic map there is a large percentage of people of Italian descent in the north east corner of the area. However, there is still some Italian people spread out throughout the rest of the northern section also. It is interesting that people do collect in areas like this based on nationality, but do not seem to group based on wage. It seems to show that people who came to America identify closely with their ethnicity and not with the jobs they have. Also, there did not seem to be much space for people to collect socially in the neighborhoods. The photos showed how little space their was for children to play in. The children had to use streets and alleyways to play, and I imagine that there was no other space for adults. The houses were so close together, there were no yards or no common space for people to congregate. I think that Hull House creates a place for people to gather and helps to create a sense of community that gets past the ethnicity's of the people in the area.

week 9 blog

I think what Jane Addams did with the Hull House definately had some religios motivations. The portion that we read in class quoted Jane as saying that she started to notice the development of a religion that was secular in nature. I think that she saw this happening and wanted to change it. It is not surprising that religion was starting to fade into the background and become more secular. As mentioned in class, all the people coming to the Chicago would have come from different relgious background with different traditions and this makes it hard to establish one for the community. I think that Jane Addams saw this problem and wanted to create a community sense to solve this problem. She saw the problem that religion was fading into the background because of conflicting tradtions and she knew it would be a challenge for it to be fixed on its own. She wanted to create new traditions and establish a new sense of community and symobls with what was availabe. I think that she definately had religios motivations and I think they she wanted to create a community sense.

week 8 blog 2

I wanted to talk some more about the Bob Marley song "Redemption Songs." I thought it was a very interesting song and though I had heard it before, it took on a very new meaning when listening to it in the context we listened to it in class. I thought the ideas of escaping mental slavery were interesting. I thought it made an interesting point about a persons own personal responsibility for their mindset with in a situation. I thought that it said some good things about putting yourself in the mindset of freedom and that would help your situation both mentally and physically. In looking at the lyrics I noticed something else that I found particularly interesting. There is a slight, but important change in the lyrics of the chorus from the start to the end. The chorus at the beginning of the song and throughout most of the song has the line, "all I ever have: Redemption songs." However, the song finishes with the lines, "all I ever had, Redemption songs." I think the change in the one word, have to had, is very important and brings in a whole new level to the song. It shows that there has been a move from the present tense to the past, which suggests that the song is about and is itself a type of journey, a trip from now to then and this one word change does that. I think it is also interesting that the change in word comes after the repeat of a previous verse. The repetition of the verse and the fact that the new line is still about redemption suggest that at the end of the journey, something is still the same even though the tense change suggests something has changed. I believe the repetition represents the physical state or location having not changed and the change from have to had represents a change in state of mind.

Week 8 blog

I think that this video is very fitting to what we have read about Rastafaris already. The people seem to not have strayed that much from the focus of Ethiopia and its greatness and their desire to return. They also seem to maintain many of the ideas and living styles that came from the ideas of Howell and the original commune he started. The people from the video kept alive the idea of black being superior to white. This could be seen in the sings that were hand made that were around the commune. It had symbols of a black "R" for right over a white "X" for wrong. Also, the word "black" in black letters appears directly over the top of the word "white" in white letters. These two signs clearly show how the Rastas in the video still adhere to the ideal of black being superior to white. Also, they keep up the lifestyle that was created by Howell in the original commune. They live on their own, outside of the rest of society and survive by farming on the land. They live based on what they grow and they still live in the same commune style that Howell had created. They even seemed to still grow marijuana as seen by the one image of the man smoking on the Sabbath. They seemed to maintain the old ways of living and wanted to keep old traditions that connected them to Ethiopia also. The turbans and dreadlocks were described by the man as being connected to Ethiopia as traditional attire. I think that these aspects of commune living and beliefs are, for the most part, consistant with what we have read so far.

Week 7 blog 2

I thought it was very interesting how the problem of the Queen becoming pregnant by Solomon in the Kebra Negast was handled. I was especially surprised how clear it was that they had had sex, but it did not seem to be a big deal and she was not looked down upon for it at all. I would have thought that this would be a huge deal and it would make the Queen look very bad, and not reflect well on Solomon either. The language of the passage itself surprised me because of how graphic it was: "after she had drunk water he worked his will with her and they slept together" (35). When I first read that I was really shocked and thought that I misunderstood it or something. I was just amazed that it told us in such blunt terms. I would think that this aspect would be a huge problem for the text and that it would cause troubles for it throughout time. I would think that first off, other Christian nations would say that it is not true because of the implications it has about Solomon. I would think having an illegitimate son with the Queen of a foreign nation would be something that is frowned upon for someone so high in the religious hierarchy. I would think it would be a hard story for the Ethiopians to have recognized. I would also think that the language and the story itself would be controversial because of the out of wedlock child that comes from it. It just goes against what I would expect from story with such an obvious problem. But, it think its success goes to show the power of history and the credibility that can come from being around for so long. I do not think that Ethiopia would be able to have this story if it was not such an old Christian nation. This story really shows the power of traditions and how you can manipulate something that would be thought to be so negative in to a way that ends up being all together neutral.

Week 7 Blog

I thought there were a lot of ways in which the text gives credit to Ethiopia. The first thing that stands out is right at the beginning of the text. The text says how the world was divided up and half of the world belonged to Ethiopia. Also, the description of the Queen is very flattering and credits her for being able to be in such a high position of power while being a woman. The thing that stood out the most to me, however, was the Queen's speech about wisdom. She has a very long, (I would say) drawn out speech about how wisdom is the most important treasure to have. She shoots down gold and silver and other riches and says that wisdom is more important than all of those. Then, shortly after her speech, King Solomon gives one that is very similar with the same point about wisdom. He says that wisdom is given by God and it is the most important treasure. This direct parallel between the Queen and King Solomon draws a comparison between the two that is flattering to the Queen, thus giving credit to Ethiopia.

Week 6 blog

I thought this picture was a good example of symbols at work in religion. I was always amazed at what people were willing to build in the name of religion and churches are a prime example of the dedication people can have to religion. It is interesting to see when the most impresive building in a place is the church. It stands for so many things, like worship, community and the idea of "God's house." Not only that, it seems to me that the excessive detail and intracacies of the buildings are a way of sort of showing off the specific religion. It is a way of saying, "look at how well our religion is doing and how correct it must be because we have this large elaborate building to worship in." I have always found them fascinating and impresive because of the way they are made to stand out and be seen as more than just a building.

week 5 blog 2

I thought it was very interesting how Prof. Smith took the ideas from Augustine and asked us how they would apply to gay marage now. I thought it was tough to say how Augustine would react to the idea and what stance he would take on it. I think what was discussed in class was good and would be my guess as what would be closest to Augustine's stance. I would like to expand on this idea a little further. I want to look at a different issue that is currently debated all the time: abortion. I would first like to make clear that what I will be saying in no way represents my personal feelings or opinions on the topic and what I believe will not be reflected in this blog. So, what stance would Augustine take on abortion?

I think that it could be possible for Augustine to take a "pro-choice" stance. Augustine focuses on the ideas of love and justice mainly, and I could see how an argument for abortion could be made through those ideas. If the situation came about that a woman got pregnant from a rape or was pregnant in a situation where she could not take care of the baby, the love argument could be made. It would be possible for Augustine to look at it as, the parents will not be in a situation to take care of the child, the child will be born into a poor situation and will suffer unnecessarily in life. He could say that the mother would be acting out of love for the unborn child, especially if she believed that the child will go to heaven. The mother would be acting out of love and her motivation would be to get in a better situation than what life would be.

Though I could see Augustine arguing for "pro-choice" I could also see him arguing the other side. As we discussed in class, it would be hard to make an argument in which Augustine would be able to justify the taking of another life, even if the child was not yet born. He would possibly argue that the mother would not be acting out of love. He could argue that the mother should love the life of the child, and do what she can to make the child's life the best she possibly can. He could also make the argument that there are other options besides abortion, such as adoption (though that has its own problems that I will not discuss). He might say that an abortion would not be justified because the child has no ability to make a choice for itself and that it would not be justly protected.

Out of the two views I think that Augustine would have a hard time getting past the problem of taking another life. I do not think he would be able to justify that, even with the arguments he could have made from the first paragraph. Even though I think Augustine would make the second argument, I can see the justifications from the first paragraph. I think that is why this issue remains so controversial in the world today.

week 5 blog
I thought that there were many interesting points made by St. Augustine about the ideas of signs and how they are used and what purpose they serve. The two ideas I thought were especially interesting were the fact that some signs are intended as signs (given signs) and some are not intended as signs (natural signs). Augustine defines given signs as signs "which living things give to each other, in order to show, to the best of their ability the emotions of their minds or anything that they have felt or learnt" (30). Augustine natural signs as signs "which without a wish or any urge to signify cause something else besides themselves to be known from them" (30). He uses smoke and fire as an example of natural signs and he uses facial expressions or shouts of pain as examples of given signs.

It is interesting to look at the Psalms with these two types of signs in mind. It can help to try and look at when something seems to be intended to be a sign, rather than just standing for something by accident. The meaning of the Psalms can change drastically if it is found that something is a sign that did not previously seem to be a sign. Also, it can give meaning and motivation to the writer of the Psalms when they are looked at with intent like this. If a sign is seen to be a given sign that means that the writer had an intent for it to stand for something and had a specific point that he wanted the reader to get out of the sign. This changes the Psalms by giving them more meaning and gives them power to influence people.

Another point Augustine makes about signs is that they are esthetically pleasing. He notes how people much prefer to learn things that they must interpret rather than things that are very obvious. "It gives me more pleasure to contemplate holy men when I see them as teeth of the church tearing men away from their errors and transferring them into its body, breaking down their rawness by biting and chewing" (33). Augustine admits that it is more pleasing to even him when symbols, such as "holy men...as teeth," are used to give a message rather than making the message outwardly clear. He says that this is a characteristic of all people and that works that need interpretation are better than those that don't. This is an advantage that the Psalms have. The meaning in the Psalms often need to be interpreted and surely Augustine would credit their popularity and timelessness with their complexity. Sings are useful to challenge people and keep them interested.

week 4 blog 2
I'll be totally honest here, I am a little tired of the Psalms, and I am happy that Monday will be our last day with them. That being said, I'm going to talk about them. I want to discuss something that we did talk about in class, the natural images in the Psalms. It is very interesting how they are used and how they seem to be so closely related to God in the Psalms. There are three main ideas about nature in the Psalms and those are, God's creation of nature, God's use of nature and man's relationship to nature.

The first thing is the fact that everyone needs to know that God created nature, and this idea can be seen in Psalm 104. The entire Psalm seems to walk through many aspects of nature and credits them all to God. "With the deep You covered it like a garment- over mountains the waters stood" which is referring to God actually creating the land (separating the land from the waters). "The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the Lebanon cedars He planted." All aspects of nature from the land to the trees were created by God. The Psalms also credits God with the way in which things in nature can be used by other things in nature, even man. "He makes hay sprout for cattle, grass for the labor of humankind." The Psalms show how God not only created nature, but also sustains it through his different creations.

There is also the idea that God can use and manipulate nature in any way he wishes. This idea is seen in Psalm 104 also. "He goes on the wings of the wind. He makes His messengers the winds, His ministers, glowing fire." This passage shows how God can use the wind to get out his message and use parts of nature to help man. But, there are also points where God can use nature in other ways. In Psalm 18 God uses nature in a much more violent way: "The Lord thundered from on high... He let loose His arrows, and scattered them, lightning bolts shot... The channels of water were exposed and the worlds foundations laid bare from the Lord's roaring." This passage uses nature images in a violent manor and wants to show how God can manipulate nature as a powerful weapon, a very different idea from using the wind as a messenger.

The final aspect of nature in the Psalms is man's relationship to nature. This idea is again, seen in Psalm 104. In the previously mentioned passage, "He makes hay sprout for cattle, grass for the labor of humankind," there is a clear message that humans should work on the land. In other words, the message is that nature was created for man to use and work on in order to prosper from it. This idea is repeated later in the Psalm; "Man gos out to his work and to his labor until evening." Nature was created to help man and for man to work on and prosper from. This is a common theme in many literary works throughout history and it is not surprising to see it in works as early as the Psalms.

week 4 blog
It seems that there is a clear ethical stance taken in the Psalms. Many of the Psalms lay out a way of living that is "good" and specifically tell people what is good in the eyes of God. This all comes out of a focus of what is good in the eyes of God. That is the general outlieing point of the ethics in the book; do what God wants and dedicate yourself to God and that is good. Psalm 15 has a good outline for ethics. It starts with "Lord, who will sojourn in Your tent, who will dwell on Your holy mountain?" Starting with a question to God does a couple of things; first, it sets up a dialog suggesting the words that follow are the words of God, which helps give it more credability and meaning. Also, it helps reinforce the idea that people should live to please God and that is the motivation to act ethical (in the way God says). In answering the question, the Psalm lays out clear, specific guidelines for how to live. "He who walks blameless and does justice and speaks the truth in his heart" is the first response to the question. These ideas are some of the most commonly seen ideas throughout the Psalms and I feel that they are the most important. The fact that they are first reinforces their importance along with the fact that they are a common theme. They focus on doing the right thing and being honest, which are the most important themes. There is also a repeated idea of "the wicked" which apears in many of the Psalms. What is interesting about the idea of the "wicked" is that usually it is something that people need protection from, so it seems to follow the idea that all people are inheritly bad and can not help but be bad. It makes sense that they need to ask for protection against the "wicked" because there it is in their nature. This leads to the next main idea that is seen, which is confessing to God. Psalm 32 is a good example of this idea. "Happy, of sin forgiven, absolved of offense" is how Psalm 32 starts. This statement alone holds all of these ideas. It does not suggest that one can be without sin, but does say that sin can be forgiven and absolved. The Pslam does later say that by being honest with God, your sins can be forgiven: "My offense I made known to You and my crime I did not cover." These ideas seem very similar to the ethics of current Christianity however, the contradiction between all people being sinners and also needing to live a ceratain way seems to be more present in the Psalms. This contradiction makes the ethic difficult to live by, though I do think it is possible because people can confess to God for forgiveness.

week 3 blog 2
I wanted to talk about something that I feel was under emphasised in class and that is the spiritual factors that are involved in the psalms. We did acknowledge that there was a spiritual aspect to the Psalms and that spirituality defiantly plays a part in the psalms, but I think that spirituality is an essential part of the psalms and without this spiritual aspect many of the Psalms wouldn't exist. When reading them I noticed that many of them have the trend of starting right off the bat with a spiritual statement or start with something spiritual. Just a few examples are, psalm 4, "When I call out, answer me, my righteous God." psalm 5, "Hearken to my speech, O Lord, attend my utterance." psalm 7, Lord, my God, in You I sheltered." and psalm 11, "In the Lord I sheltered." There are many more, but I used some that were in such close proximity to show how this is not just a trend, but takes place in a lot of the Psalms. I think that the spiritual aspects of the psalms is where they hold their power. It is the ability for individuals to connect with the messages and the words in the Psalms that allow them to function as well as they do. Without this personal, spiritual, connection they would not be able to serve people and create connections for people as well as they do with the spirituality. I think the fact that the spiritual aspects are usually put right up front at the beginning of the psalms helps reinforce my argument. The writer(s) want to have that strong hook to get peoples attention and make people interested and it is the spirituality that serves this purpose. Leading with ideas of close connection to God could be a strategic method to help people pay attention to the Psalms and really feel passionately about them. I believe without the spirituality the psalms would just be poems about God, rather than in their own category.

Week 3 Blog.
In reading the Bay Psalm Book's Psalm 2 I would credit the differences from the original to the historical context of dealing with the Native Americans. The first difference that stood out to me was the repeated use of the word "Heathen". It is changed in the first line and is capitalized which makes it stand out even more. It is repeated again, later in the Psalm. I think that the use of "Heathen" would make people of 1640 think of Native Americans right away. The Psalm also sets up a separation between the "Heathens" and the others talked about in the Psalm. Then it continues to talk about how God will give the land of the "Heathens" to the settlers. I believe the changes in the Psalm are meant to help the settlers justify the taking of the Native Americans land. There are repeated statements of God giving the settlers right to the land because the "Heathens" do not believe in God. I do not think there is any other way that the settlers of 1640 could have interpreted this poem. This follows the argument that many settlers did use: that the natives were savage, non-religious, "heathens" who were being helped by the settlers and the settlers needed to provide them examples of civilized behavior and lifestyles.

I would like to discuss something that seemed to only apply to me in class. Prof. Smith mentioned the talk given by Elizabeth Young briefly and how that might be an example of how cultural change can change the views of religion, in this case specifically about death. I was a little caught off guard when it was mentioned in class and I talked it down a little bit. I feel I was a little hasty in my comments in class. Prof. Smith was trying to say that the talk suggested that the Civil War could have changed peoples views on death. However, that is not what the talk was focusing on. However, I attended the talk because of a class I was taking on the Civil War, and though it was not about a change in death, I can see how the Civil War could have changed peoples views on death. Before the Civil War people had a very interesting view about death. It was common practice to take photographs of dead children in live action poses (it is verry creepy, verry creepy). The view of death was one that beilieved that it was an extention of life and it was a very glorified view of death. Once the Civil War took place, the view on death became more real. Hence the photographic book that I mentioned in class. The pictures of that time tried to portray death as it was, and make it more real. It changed from a glorified version to one that was studied closer and there was a need to give the death of these soldiers meaning. I think that this is an example of how the views of death changed. Death needed meaning and people connected death with honor and this helped to get young men inlisted in the different armies.

I think that the use of animals in the in the effigy mounds differs greatly from the use of animals in the Lascaux cave. In the cave the animals were sometimes shown with people and seemed to be representations of events and things that had happened. They could be directions, and are most likely representative of stories and history. In the effigy mounds, however, the animals were used to symbolize people and culture. They were representative of the people in the area, along with being connected to honoring the death of people buried there. I think it is very similar to the ways animals are used for sports teams today. If someone sees a symbol of a sports team, they know who it represents, where it comes from and what it means. It represents a group of people rather than history or a story. Plus the symbols can represent beliefs of groups. The symbol can be seen at a sports bar or restaurant and can tell outsiders the beliefs and feelings of those who are in the area. These are ways that sports team symbols are similar to the effigy mounds.

I’d like to look at Grizzly Man and some aspects of the movie that I found interesting. First I would say to everyone that has not seen the movie, watch the rest of it, because it is really interesting to see the different aspects of his life and the rest of the footage that he shot. We were discussing in class whether or not Treadwell would be considered insane. I made a few comments and I don’t think that I fully expressed what I was trying to argue. I would not say that he was “crazy” but I would argue that he was not completely mentally stable. When you specifically look at the scenes where the fox steals his hat and then, later in the film (we did not watch it I class), he goes off on a ten minute rant about some environmental group. He yells and curses and freaks out, uncontrollably. I would use these two scenes and the failures he had in his past would show that he was not mentally stable. I would also argue that stability is what he was looking for in the wild. He thought he could find the stability in the bears and thought that they would provide him an answer.
These aspects of what he was looking for are what seem to echo so closely to what we have discussed in class as being characteristics of a religion. He was looking for answers and purpose in his life. He was asking the questions that religion are supposed to answer, however he focused so closely on being with and like the bears that he could not find what he was looking for. I feel that he would have been more successful if he had taken a step out of the wild and been able to look at it more objectively and through a lens that keeps him separated from actually living with the bears.
Looking at his motivations for his actions is the most interesting aspect of the film. He describes his motivations as being for the bears and he wants to protect them. However, I feel that his motivations are much more internal and selfish than he makes them out to be. I feel that, though he is sincerely trying to help the bears, he is more concerned with satisfying some internal need that has not been filled for him. As many experts in the movie describe, he was actually doing more harm to the bears by living amongst them. Also, the fact that he was not educated in how to deal with bears, or have much real knowledge about bears when he went into the wild suggests that his motives were not for the bears. If he really wanted to help the bears, he would have educated himself properly before he made any sort of drastic moves, like living amongst the bears. The fact that he jumped into a situation without having extensive knowledge about the bears shows that his motivations were internal. It’s very interesting that the things he was looking for are very similar to the answers that religion usually provides.

Definition of Religion

To restate the definition:
A system of symbols which attempt to create powerful, long lasting moods which can reach a wide array of people and motivate people by providing a general answer to questions of why and presents these ideas in such a way that they appear to be factual and realistic.

I agree with the statement about statements and aspects of religion seeming factual or factually based. It is very important for people to think that what they belive in is true and factual. I think that a factual aspect is of the utmost importance to any religion. Without the support of something being factual the stories, writings, and messages of religion would seem just that, stories. It would be very difficult to get people to believe in something and in turn act in a certain way if it the argument was based on stories that were percieved to be fictional. What is most interesting to me about this aspect of religions is that science has disproved some of the arguments put forth by religion, especially in this country, but their still remains people who follow the teachings of religion as facts. It is interesting that this contradiction can exist.