Landscape of the American People

     In Lane's article, "Landscapes of the Sacred," he quoted Ortega y Gasset on the first page.  Gasset says,
             "Tell me the landscape in which you live and I will tell you who you are."
     This quote is a sort of "hidden" definition of the American people.  Our land defines us. The space in which we live continues to shape us throughout our entire life. If someone asks from where I am, and I say Minnesota, to them I am Minnesotan, but more importantly I am American. Americans celebrate the 4th of July, we are proud of our ownership of land, and we are proud that blood has been shed for us to keep our land.  It is easy to take all of these American traditions of loving our land into account but only "go through the motions." However, if one stops and thinks about it, Americans value land very highly, and it is more than a monetary value.  Americans value land as a symbol of hope too.  In Lane's article, he also quotes Wallace Stegner, who says,
          "We...need that wild country...even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can  
             be...a part of the geography of hope."
    In early centuries, the open land of America was a symbol of hope, a symbol of a new and better life for the pioneers.  Now that our country is developed, the open land is still a symbol of hope, but a hope for something else.  Our open land has been preserved in National Forests and State Parks.  There is a reason people value this land, but I think if you asked everyone, you would get different responses as to why this open space means so much.  To me the open land is a symbol of freedom - the wildlife is free, and the tourists are free to explore.  There is so much undeveloped territory that so many people value highly because of the history of American land.  The American people value landscape around them, and they are landscaped by the territory around them.  It is in our history to love our land and value it as a symbol of hope and pride of ownership.

Relandscaping

In Gregory Conniff's article, "Landscape Is a Point of View,"  he writes,
   Landscape is one source of our humanness. Despite television, culture still has its deepest roots in geography; place is still a shaper of the soul...Landscape is about something outside of us without which we would be lost in space...Recognizing this mystery makes me feel less easily at home in familiar surroundings, but the new light breaking through from another's viewpoint gives me both the comfort of not being alone and an odd delight in wondering how I got to wherever I am.  For some of us, the big question is, "Why are we here?" I have never gotten past thinking about what "here" is.
    What sticks out to me in this selection is "place is still a shaper of the soul".  Is place really what shapes us? Do we become different people after living in St. Olaf grounds for 4 years?  On the other hand, is a place shaped by our soul? Do we bring something different and change the landscape of the place in which we live?  I believe that both sides of this argument are right.  From living on this campus, we will become different people, we will learn the terrain and it will shape our actions and motives.  But, we will also change the place in which we inhabit. There is a reason they did not just let anyone into this college. The admissions people care about the "landscape" of St. Olaf.  New landscapes force us to not be at "home", so we have to "relandscape"our new surroundings in order to make it home again.

Anne Hutchinson

           In the article "Anne Hutchinson and the Mortalist Heresy" by J.F. Maclear, the author talks about how the Puritan's doubt of immorality sprouted ideas across the whole country, and maybe even the entire world.  The author writes,  

         "Skepticism about the soul's immortality spread in various quarters in seventeenth-century England; one of these quarters was Puritan heterodoxy where, freed from all effective control by war and revolution, an advanced literal, rational, or mystical exegesis brought into question traditional meanings attached to death, resurrection, and the Last Things. Partly on this basis, argument has been seriously advanced that Puritan radicalism may have provided "one of the stimuli that went into the making of the Enlightenment."

         I find this interesting, but also probably true because up to this point the U.S. had been a predominantly Christian country, and therefore people were stuck in the concrete ideas that had always been.  But when individuals started to break apart from this social "norm" and create their own new ideas, it caused others to do the same.  So when Maclear claims that the "Puritan radicalism may have provided "one of the stimuli that went into the making of the Enlightenment," I would be persuaded to believe him.  Because without certain individuals starting to make  a stand and introduce new ideas, the Enlightenment might not have happened. Anne Hutchinson and those who rebelled against the Puritan normalcy with her helped cause new ideas to come into play in America. 

Through reading the articles and poems about the Pilgrims and Puritans, I am reminded of the difference in the way our country is run now compared to how it was run when it was first becoming established.  In the early 1600s, every move that those who were in charge of the country made were based on pleasing God or for the glory of God, etc.  For example, the "Mayflower Compact" reads,

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

   In my Spanish class, we have been discussing the fact that to others, America can seem like a "Christian Nation."  For outsiders and for people who do not know much about our country, it is easy to assume we are unified country under one religion. This is obviously not true.  But I think that the reason that this assumption comes from our history is because we were established by those who believed in God, and so much of our history comes from them.  Also, there is no place in our constitution that says that mentions God or any such religious factor.  I think it is interesting that because of the religion of those who founded our country, many outsiders believe that Christianity is the official religion of our country. 

The American Race

             In Takaki's A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, the author spends a lot of time comparing the different races, and how the people of the United States are only here because they were once people of a different country.  Takaki writes,
            "Together, 'We the' diverse 'people of the United States' transformed America into a mighty economy and an amazingly unique society of varied races, ethnicities, and religions. In the process, we transformed ourselves into Americans. Together, we composed "e pluribus unim" - a reality discerned by Herman Melville over one hundred years ago. Our country was settled by "the people of all nations,' he wrote. 'All nations  may claim her for their own. You can not spill a drop of American blood, without spilling the blood of the whole world.' Americans are 'not a narrow tribe.'
          This strikes me as a powerful quote because so much of today's world is focused on discriminating different races, when people do not realize that we as a nation are an "American" race. The idea of just grouping everyone together into one, single race called the American race seems impossible for some.  We all live in the same country, we are all "citizens" of America in one way or another. On the other hand, we are all different.  We all came from ancestors who were from different countries and continents.  If an American dies, it is not only the American part of him but also the part of his ancestors that tie him to a different county.  We are all tied together in one way or another whether we like it or not.  Why distinguish people from which culture or country they came from? Is there a need to distinguish between Asians, Africans, Norwegians, etc, if we are all American's anyway? If we are really "Together, We the diverse people of the United States", why can we not just be the American Race and stop discriminating based on the origin of our family?

How Our Country Can Define Us

       In "Learning to Love America" by Shirley Geok-Lin Lim, the narrator talks a lot about how she defines herself.   She became defined as a person because of her country and her choice to live and stay in America.  Geok-Lin Lim writes,
"Because to have a son is to have a country
because my son will bury me here
because countries are in our blood and we bleed them

because it is late and too late to change my mind
because it is time."
     I think it is interesting how the narrator makes the distinction that because we live in a certain place then that certain place it what defines us. No matter what we do, it is what we take pride in and we will sacrifice some part of us in some way or another and "bleed" our country. It sounds like the narrator is making a sacrifice: she is choosing to stay in America so she can give her son a good life in America.  This raises the question of what would we as students sacrifice ourselves for? Or more importantly, what would we give our life to and what is worth "bleeding" for? What do we want to define us?

Are All Freedoms Equal?

               In the "Positive and Negative Liberty" article, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the writer makes a point about whether or not all freedoms are "created equal."  The author says,
               "Should all options (of freedom) count for the same in terms of degrees of freedom, or should                         they be weighted according to their importance in terms of other values? And how are we to compare the unfreedom created by the physical impossibility of an action with, say, the unfreedom created by the difficulty of costliness or punishability of an action? It is only by comparing these different kinds of actions and constraints that we shall be in a position to compare individuals' overall degrees of freedom."
              I find this interesting because if the government took this into account, there would always be people who disagree. Everyone has different values and holds different freedoms in a higher value.  But should certain freedoms be held as more important than others?  Or could we just not make a distinction between the types of freedom and hold each freedom as equally important as other freedoms? I think it is important to make this distinction, especially between positive and negative liberty, because it allows us as U.S. citizens to have an opinion and take advantage of and participate in the democratic government by voting for what we believe in.

Political Engagement

A quote that stood out to me from Terry Tempest Williams' "Engagement" essay was about how she believes that some people view political engagement in a wrong way.  She writes, "We have mistaken political engagement with a political machinery we all understand to be corrupt."  This really reminded me that although there is a lot of corruption in politics, that does not mean that each participant will be a part of that corruption.  Americans are given the freedom of speech and the freedom to stand up for what they believe to be good for the country.  I think some people are to afraid to get involved or at least be updated and aware of what is going on in the political world today, because it can seem corrupt.  Politics can seem scary and daunting at times.
Overall, I think that Terry Tempest Williams' is speaking to all individuals in an attempt to get people to participate in the democracy and realize what citizens can accomplish if they join together.  I find this interesting because it seems as though in today's world, people tend to either go all the way and speak up about what they believe in, or they just sit quiet and let others take care of "what is good for humanity." By encouraging all people to take advantage of the democratic government we have here in the United States, I think that the author hopes to prompt individuals who are not involved to become leaders and to care about political issues that interest them.