Preparation for the Essay: Main Thoughts 11/10/10

          So I'm basically assessing the different perspectives of Emerson, Thoreau, and Fuller on what it means to be an American. But before even beginning I have a question. Can I write a paper based on their individual ideas, or do I need to find a common theme that is present in all of their writings and discuss those? It seems like Emerson is pretty all around, Thoreau is very American in relevance to government, and Fuller toys with the idea that the word American and all of the nuances and special implications that come with that word be not just applied to males, Although she does touch upon some other very interesting points as well. So let me break it sown further.
          So Emerson is all about what it means to be an American in terms of responsibility and privilege. He believes that it is the job of the scholars to lead society, to draw out a path for the rest to follow. He absolutely pushes action. You must act, says Emerson, on what you believe. For if one simply sits, society doesn't get very far. They must act to trail-blaze for others to follow behind, and they must orchestrate me so that me can be Man. That's Emerson.
          Thoreau is not as lengthy. He is very willing to see the American be something completely different than everyone before. Thoreau wishes for an America without government, yet he realizes that this young country couldn't handle it. So he advocates government with limited influence, and a shrinking amount of influence as the country matures. Thoreau is also an advocate of justice, and is a strong opponent to Slavery and the Mexican war. I guess in his mind, an American is (or at least should be) someone who is morally just, willing to participate in the government, even though they know that they might be outnumbered. I think that's about it. How to relate that to my thesis.... still working on that.
          And finally we have Fuller, who is all about the white males sharing the Americanism, if you know what I mean. She felt like, to the men, the women were just necessities; he provides for the house, and she tends it. Fuller also stresses though that women need to learn self-dependence and autonomy, and that while marriage is still important, she needs to know how to live for herself, and not just be a tool of her husband. I need to read more, but this is were I stand on Fuller at he moment.
          So this is pretty much what I'm working with at the moment. If you can find some connection between these people that I can analyze, it would help a lot. It seems to me that they have such different perspectives, and address such different things, that I don't know how I can use them. Just looking for some guidance. Thank you.

Whitman's "Preface to Leaves of Grass" 11/3/10

        While I do not really understand a lot of what Whitman is saying, and though I really don't like the way he writes, with his endless lists that give you automatic snow blindness, I can understand why he writes the way he does. Whitman believes wholeheartedly that the American poet needs to be to the world something new and different. He doesn't want Americans to be like Americans 50 years ago. He doesn't want Americans to be like Europeans. He wants Americans to be something new, something "appropriate to the time." This strange writing style of his is just a way of practicing what he preaches. He wants Americans to forge their own way, and who is behind this push for change but the poet.
        Whitman's poet is basically equivalent to Emerson's American scholar. It is the scholar/poets job to lead the nation, and to lead them in a new direction then their predecessors, the "minds of the past." It is also to teach the nation, as the poet is the enlightened one, the one who can focus just upon the scholarly and upon sharing their beliefs and discoveries with the world. In reality, the poet is to function as the conduit of new ideas to flow in and out of America.

Whitman's "Preface to Leaves of Grass" 11/1/10

        Ok so first off I am finding this a tad hard to follow, but based on what we discussed in class today, I will give it my best shot. So I'm guessing that sense he says the word America repeatedly and because we have been discussing this theme, Whitman is once again addressing the topic of "What is an American?". And it seems like he has some pretty lofty things to say about Americans. He acknowledges the fact in the first paragraph that America has gone through quite a few things, not all of them good, and learned a lot from them. However, the American is able to leave those things in the past and find the thing that is appropriate to the present. And then he goes on to say that Americans are perfect because blah blah blah. At least that's what I'm getting out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know. He seems a bit conceded to me.
        The third paragraph is the one that seems a bit more contradictory though. In class you said that Emerson was a huge influence on Whitman, but Whitman advocates that the power of America lies with the common man. Whitman says "the genius of the United States is not best or most in its.... authors or colleges[,]... but always most in the common people." Doesn't Emerson advocate that the genius of America lies in the authors and colleges? That the common people play an important role, but are really just people to do the labor and keep society functioning. That the scholars were really the ones who ran the country? I guess I'm just trying to understand how Whitman can be a supporter of Emerson but have such a major contradiction in the preface of is book?

Thoreau's "Resistance to a Civil Government"

        So far Thoreau seems a bit more clear cut than Emerson, and his views are portrayed in such a way that it isn't overly difficult to read. His most basic stance on civil government is that the best kind is nothing; he believed that the pinnacle of a government is having the least amount of interference as possible in the lives of the citizens. He was virtually an anarchist. However, Thoreau was smart enough to know not to try to push for a radical anarchist shift in the government. He knew that the country just was not ready for it yet.
        Also, the other primary point that I saw as I looked over this was his opinion on your responsibility as an American. He actually summed up the common American quite accurately; He said that unless we are sure of being a part of the majority, we will not express out opinions about certain matters. The example that he used was with the American voting system. He basically stated that Americans will not vote for a belief of theirs as long as they feel that they will be defeated. They won't leave their feeling of security. At this moment, these are the only two primary ideas that I see, If there are some that I'm missing, just let me know in the comments

Emerson's "American Scholar" 10/17/10

        I'm oging to do kind of a mixture of a question/opinion blog. So opinion first. I think I've got the first half of this thing down; I'm good with pretty much everything that we talked about in class. The influences are good, and I understand the matter of action being both an influence and a responsibility pretty well. So that just leaves the end of he speech. I find it to be, if I understand it correctly, the most interesting part of the speech.
        Emerson says, "Man is surprised to find that things near are not less beautiful and wondrous than things remote. The near explains the far." This idea is a bit profound. I think Emerson is saying "look dimwits, you need to openyour eyes and realize that what you need to be working on is right in front of your face. Stop overthinking things. You can see your destiny right on your doorstep." Perhaps a bit more eloquently from his lips than mine of course, but that's the general idea. i think this is the first time that he has actually addressed the scholar on what they should be doing, aside from the responsibilities of course. Now, at the end of his speech, Emerson makes his point known.
        There is another quote that I find interesting though that I don't quite understand. "Is it so bad then? Sight is the last thing to be pitied. Would we be blind? Do we fear lest we should outsee nature and God, and drink truth dry?" I seems a significant passage, but I would appreciate it if we could go over it in class tomorrow.

Emerson's "American Scholar" 10/15/10

So in class we discussed the first of the two responsibities, which in many ways, is like the last of the three influences. While action is an influence on scholars, it is also a reponsibilty for them to take seriously. A scholar cannot sit around and just look at what others are doing, and can likewise he cannot be content to "parrot" the work of others. He must be willing to produce his own work, and trailblaze ahead for the rest of manhind. By sitting on his butt, the scholar is really just a completee waste to the human species, for it is his responsibility as a scholar to be the Man Thinking, and lead the rest of the world to its full potential.

Emerson's "The American Scholar" 10/13/10

Yesterday in class, the whole goal was to delve a a bit deeper into the "influences" that Emerson discusses in regards to the American scholar, and what the stand for. The firs two are pretty simple. Nature is all around us. Everything that humans work toward, all the sciences that humans treasure so much, can all be classified in terms of nature. It really represents all of the world around us, an obvious influence on scholars. The minds of the past is the second great influence on the American scholar. Those who came before us all worked towards the enlightenment of our species, and they left their legacy in the hands of generations to come later: that would be us. The third influence is the hardest and most difficult to understand. It's action. Action as an influence can be most easily described as the expectation of other great minds around you to  add to the wealth of knowledge of the human species. Just about the worst type of person to Emerson was one who, though completely capable, sat there and didn't contribute to society.