StaggShire

Amistad and Slavery

I really really enjoyed watching this edited movie. I’m pretty good at being a sympathetic and empathetic person, but this movie really helped me see aspects of slavery I’d never thought of before. For example, at the beginning of the movie there is this shot of a heaving, sweating, heavily breathing something. Because it is so dark and because that something is so dark, it takes a minute or two and a slight change in camera angle to tell that it is actually a person, Joseph Cinque to be precise. This helped me understand the beastlike, wolf caught in a trap attitude that a lot of blacks had to reach in order to survive. I know a lot of white people back then said the blacks were “animals”. Throughout different times in the movie I could see that animalistic behavior. On one hand, the “animalistic” behavior such as keeping the young boy’s body was just unfamiliar and cultural. On the other hand, other behaviors that were also shown in the movie were indeed animalistic, but only because through the white cruelty and circumstances, they had to become in some ways something less than human, something capable of surviving what no human being (or animal ) should have to go through. I know that if I had that happen to me, I would really have to let go of the more human part of me to let go of the pain and to survive. In a strong fashion, acting animalistic is an important reminder of the humanity of the slaves, and of the inhumanity of their circumstances and captors.

Also, the scene where Joseph Cinque is with his family and then gets captured without them knowing just went straight to my heart. The fact that Africans captured and slaves in America were and could be wrenched away from their families at any moment has always been a very somber reality for me. However, now that I am married, I just kept picturing my dear husband and best friend Kevin being dragged away into the underbrush, or I standing at the head of the ship back to Africa, like Joseph Cinque, not knowing what lay ahead, not knowing that my family was not going to be there. This gripping realization and the vivid feelings I had made my appreciation and testimony of the plan of salvation grow so much stronger. I am so grateful that I can be with my family again after I die, and it makes me so happy that Joseph Cinque is with his family again, right now as I write this and you read this.
I also realized, seeing the scars that were still on Joseph Cinque’s skin once the case was won for good and the handcuffs removed, that there was so much emotional baggage that the slaves and the Africans on the Amistad had to deal with. For example, the Mende who interpreted- even though he was a free black, even though he could read and write- what was he losing by being here in the United States and not in Africa? What of his culture and his heritage went slipping away, lost for his whole life? I know there was a least one point in the movie where it seemed from the look on his face while watching the Africans that he felt a keen sense of loss and longing.

Thank you, Dr. Holzapfel, for the opportunity to so poignantly expand my already eager understanding and deep love and respect for African cultures and peoples.

I chose to expound upon Federalist No. 10 because it contains a concept which I found very simple but very enlightening. That concept is that Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dancers than smaller republics, for instance, the individual states. In taking AP US history in high school we learned about this stuff, but now that I’m smarter (I guess) I understand so much better how much the states were against each other and so concerned with their own interests rather than the common good of America. That’s why a few weeks ago, the name of our country, the UNITED States of America, hit home with me. It really was such a long and laborious accomplishment for these individual states to become united. Madison obviously need to put this Federalist Paper out there so that people would list to sence. I guess this is why Wikipedia reports, “Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy. In "The People's Vote," a popular survey conducted by the National Archives and Records Administration, National History Day, and U.S. News and World Report, No. 10 (along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history.” I love that Dr. Holzapfel has us read such relavent readings. Althought these Federalist papers weren’t the most enjoyable out of all our readings, I still read them knowing they weren’t just stupid papers that had nothing to do with our learning, and that knowledge helps me to appreciate the reading that I’m doing.

It is interesting to me that this Federalist paper indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for American politics to be partisan. I’ve been witness to many debates about this and read stuff on it and I’m still not sure what I think. I like the thought of voting for a person, not a party, for sure. I would like to be able to vote for someone based on their own individual views, not the views the party has for them. But then again, isn’t it human nature to organize thoughts and beliefs under a specific motto or name or creedo or whatever? Despite that, I do think that a no party system would be a good idea. There, I guess I just decided.
It looks like the Founding Fathers took human nature into account here though too. Yet again, Madison says, let us focus on the effects, because we can’t do anything about the causes of factions, because those are just human nature. Justica Clarence Thomas said, “The Framers (of the Constitution) preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive cure for faction htat the majority today endorses, the Framers armed individual citizens with a remedy.” This remedy is liberty. This remedy is “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” I love this idea to because it seems so simple but I’m sure it was very revolutionary at the time. I really appreciate how he embraces diversity.

I also really like this line here, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” I wish I had read this back in my freshman year of high school. The principal of my school hit one of the teachers and threw something at his son (the teacher’s son, who also attended the school), and we had a trial for it, with the principal as judge! It was ridiculous! I wonder why those adults didn’t do anything about it. They should have brought up the Federalist Papers and been like “Behold, the wisdom of James Madison!”

There wasn't really one aspect of this movie that intrigued me enough to write a decent blog post about, so I'm going to write about several aspects.

I found it really interesting that George Washington was so key to everything, and that everyone, no matter what party they were in, liked him so much. It makes sense, but I'd just never realized how crucial he was. I'm glad he actually decided to come to the convention. I didn't really understand from the movie why he didn't want to come. Also, I don't know if this was just because of the movie or what, but there were some parts of the movie where James Madison sounded like John Adams, which I thought was funny but also quite appropriate. I liked how they explained that societies are amde up of warring factions, and that a small republic often gives up to these factions. They said that only in a large government with different people can no one faction gained control. I thought that was really smart, just another advantage a larger nation has over a smaller one. I thought it was sad that John Dickinson kept causing trouble with the whole representation deal because he seemed like a really smart guy and a few posts ago I said I really liked him. But you'd think he'd be smart enough to not make another big error in judgment. I thought it was cool that Benjamin Franklin suggests a prayer and says that God governs in the affairs of men. It surprised me that he did this because I thought he was a Deist who didn't take much to God and religion.

Even though this movie was kinda cheesy and parts and I couldn't get over the actor who played Alexander Hamilton, it was really helpful for me to more internalize the concepts I'd learned in the chapter.

Please discuss, in 600-800 words, the fundamental questions that the Founding Fathers wrestled with before they wrote up the Constitution.
This is the blog topic for this week.
The Founding Fathers had to research all previous governments, ask why they failed, and ask why and in what manner they succeeded. The Founding Fathers had to research all previous governments, ask why they failed, and ask why and in what manner they succeeded. They asked the question, “What does an ideal government do? What are the characteristics of an ideal government?” Well, an ideal government is fair, it protects its people, and it keeps public order. It is a government that has the best interests of the people at heart. The ideal government is wise, reasonable, efficient, compassionate, moderate, and helpful. When he asked us in class about to think about these questions moderate was not one of the adjectives I came up with, but hearing it made total sense. After all, within the Gospel, such as through the Word of Wisdom, we are taught moderation in all things. It only makes sense that the ideal government would be so as well. That word gives me another standard by which to base my judgement of our government today and whereby to construct my political leanings. Although I should remember that moderate in the way of the world and moderate in the way of God are not the same thing most of the time.
They also asked the question, “What about real world experience with governments?” What they were met with there was not so hearts-and-flowersy. Most, if not all of the world’s governments, have become tyrannical, invasive, and aggressive. There has been genocide and ethnic cleansing. Obviously, the ideal government does not match reality. So the founding fathers had to look at existent and previous government. There they found the circle of the human predicament. At the top of the circle is tyranny, then comes revolution, then anarchy at the bottom, and from anarchy comes competing groups, which goes into tyranny again. In studying these governments, they found that even in tyranny some people do benefit, which goes to show that any form of government is better than anarchy. I personally found this to be a very interesting concept. So, of course, the Founding Fathers concluded that they must have a government either way, but, much like the true church, the best earthly government was not nor had even been created on the earth at that time. So the founding fathers had to grapple with these three concepts: Government, Freedom, and Human Nature. The Founding Fathers took into account the humanity of our race, and with that to rein them in, set out to establish the ideal government for this earth. (One girl in the class brought up an interesting theory in her Just and Holy Principles paper: that the United States government as laid out by the Founding Fathers is in preparation for the government of Jesus Christ.) This government would be one that expands freedom, takes into account human nature, doesn’t give government absolute power. As one European author put it: “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They realized that in order to keep the government officials from having too much power, there had to be the concept of the rule of law, which means that the people are ruled by a law, rather than by a personality. I also thought that concept, although very simple, was very sweet. It’s concepts like that, simple but sweet, that help me to recognize how truly enlightened these men, of different opinions and different backgrounds, were.

Wow, these posting assignments just keep getting longer and longer. I hope next week's post doesn't climb to 700-850 words.

At the dinner table scene (which is the first time we see much of Adams in the film) I liked how Adams was portrayed because even though I'd never imagined Adams specifically it seemed to me that was exactly how Adams was. Paul Giamatti plays him with such naturality you don't even question him as a believable Adams. It made me smile to see Benjamin Franklin's spectacles, and many times throughout the movie he made me laugh. I didn't realize he was such an eccentric chracter, although having known he wanted the turkey. to be the nation bird... I shoulda known. Dr. Holzapfel emphasized many times how the Founding Fathers had to buy their time for independence, and it seemed like Benjamin Franklin was the orchestrator of that. John Dickinson, in his first speech, didn't seem as eloquent and polite as Adams said he was. His accent was also really weird. I don't think the actor they picked for John Dickinson really did him justice, because in reading "John Adams" I really felt a lot of sympathy for him and I could feel how much he was respected and what a great guy he was, even though he did support reconciliation. I also think that he was the one who said the "s" word during a talk in Congress, which I think no one would have said in Congress, much less John Dickinson, being the venerable and eloquent lawyer he was. I was disappointed with that.

I very much appreciated how throughout the film it showed Abigail often, because that was definitely a window onto Adams himself. Abigail was very important to him, and it wouldn't have properly shown the man he was without giving her and the family the screentime she was given. I really identified with her opinions and thoughts. I think she was probably even more frustrated with Congress than Adams was, because she knew all that was going on, but, being a woman, could not have a voice in Congress.

I noticed the camera angles were very real and at first I was bothered by the backs of heads in the frame partially blocking main characters and such, but then I realized they were shooting it like a live, on-the-scene documentary. This really contributed to the reality of the story to me.

It was great to see Adams have such human emotions after he sees the soldiers wounded from Conchord. When you think of John Adams you think of all the lofty words he spoke and the stirring way he spoke and the ideals he stood for, but you don't often picture his face, picture his eyes wet with tears, picture the love in his eyes for his wife and family. It was funny because in watching this movie Adams seemed more human and at the same time greater than before.

Although I'm sure I read it in this class before, I didn't realize exactly how important Virginia was in the negotiations. I also didn't realize how tall George Washington was. I thought his character was PERFECT. His face wasn't good-looking, but his voice was so leadership-filled; he sounded like Liam Neeson, and we all know if Liam Neeson asked us to do something we'd do it right away, and that's probably how George Washington was too. I liked how he said he felt he wasn't equal to the task, because I think all great leaders have though that, which is why they didn't get power-hungry and become corrupted. The interchange between Jefferson and Adams when Jefferson asked him the write the Declaration, and then the meeting of the Committee afterward was very moving and funny at the same time. It felt so real to me, because a lot of the time that's how life is, moving and great one moment, surpring the next, and then totally hilarious the next. I appreciated how they focused on John Adams and how when he was fighting for independence Benjamin Franklin told him that he seemed "quite carried out of himself". It really helps the audience to recognize God's hand in this and to recognize the Spirit's influence on him and on the other members of Congress.

I was very grateful for the chance to blog about this because there were a lot of things during our tour I didn’t get to say.

Putting the tour aside for a moment, I really liked the scripture (Moses 6:63) at the beginning of the pamphlet, which talked about how all things, both temporal and spiritual, are made to bear record of Heavenly Father. I’ve always been a big fan of looking to nature and to natural processes and seeing how nothing but God could have a played a role in their creation. I own the series Planet Earth and it’s just incredible to learn about all the stuff that goes on in nature and all of the beautiful beautiful sights. I don’t understand how there could be such beauty in the world on accident, not to mention how everything works out and how most of nature is so dependent on light, just how we as humanity should be dependent on the light of Christ.

At the beginning of the tour there was a sculpture called “God steadying the Ark”. Even though we didn’t talk about hat sculpture, I had my eye on and it was one of my favorites. I loved the style of the piece and I just loved the tender expression on God’s face and how he cuddled the ark in his arms. The Daily Bread painting was interesting. I liked learning about what the different colors represented. I wanted to ask if there was any specific reason geraniums were used, but then I figured it was because they are a pretty humble flower. In the pamphlet it doesn’t say anything about a geranium being a humble flower but it does say something about fragrance, which I thought was weird because geraniums smell disgusting. I also wondered what the significance was of the woman looking so masculine; her hair was short and she didn’t really have any curves.

The painting by Man of Sorrows by Christopher Young I thought was really beautiful. I was surprised because the wood on the cross actually looked like beautiful wood, and Jesus looked in peak condition,. This surprised me just because a lot of the other paintings of his bare chest show him to be very bony and skeletal oftentimes. I know other members of the class treated his muscles with skepticism, but it is in the Word of Wisdom that we should exercise, and Jesus was a carpenter, so I don’t see why it is unreasonable for him to have a great physique, but I do understand that maybe he wasn’t quite so “modelesque” in real life. Also, before the lady mentioned that a violinist thought that he looked like he was holding an instrument, I thought, “Wow, he looks like he’s holding the cross like a violin,” but I didn’t say it because I don’t actually play the violin and didn’t want someone to think “Uh, actually no it’s not”. But then she said that and I was like, “Sweet”.

My other favorite painting was the one with the red and white fabrics on the chairs. I thought a lot of really good comments were made about it. I liked how it was hard to tell exactly where the floor was and how the lower chair was tipped over. It was beautiful how the white fabric was just illuminated and how the red was reflected in the white fabric. It was just a really cool painting.