Whitman's Preface to Leaves of Grass -- The Role of the Poet

     In Walt Whitman's social commentary in the preface to Leaves of Grass, he sets aside the poet from all other men and assigns them many important roles. Whitman asserts that in America, poets will put to use better than anywhere else in the world, performing such tasks as keeping the peace or inciting war through public speaking, encouraging the development of the nation, and even making legal decisions. The poet as described by Whitman is a near-mythical figure who is intellectually and spiritually enlightened far above the masses. The ideal poet will essentially just be a great watcher of the universe. Whitman describes him as follows: “He is a seer … he is individual … he is complete in himself... [h]e is not one of the chorus … he does not stop for any regulation . . . he is the president of regulation." The greatest poets function purely as observers, analyzers, and recorders. They are on the outside looking in at society, so to speak. They do not themselves interact with society or the world; they merely observe, and thanks to their superior knowledge and understanding of the workings of the universe, they are the only ones who are truly able to see what is going on. Their abilities allow them to truly and wholly comprehend the phenomena taking place around them. Above all, the function of the poet is to be a judge. Whitman even goes so far as to say "He is no arguer . . . he is judgment [...] [h]e judges not as the judge judges but as the sun falling around a helpless thing." In this sense, Whitman says the poet should act as a benign yet universal decider of the nature of things. He should never interfere, but always watch and make judgments based on his observations.

--Wald der Schnell

Whitman's Preface to Leaves of Grass -- Beginning Overview

     Leaves of Grass is a collection of poems by Walt Whitman including the famous “Song of Myself” and “I Sing the Body Electric.” The lesser-know preface to this work is an entire philosophical essay in itself. From the very beginning, Whitman speaks very highly of the new America. He elaborately praises America for everything from its mixture of cultures to its acceptance of various ideas to its geography. He seems to believe that America is a unique country in the history of the world, stating that "The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem." Where Emerson in "The American Scholar" described America as a nation with the potential to become a utopia, Whitman practically says it is a utopia already.
     As for the text itself, Emerson frequently employs the use of very long lists to give visual descriptions. Unfortunately, these lists can become very tiresome to read, and seem to detract from the overall point of the essay.

--Wald der Unglücklich

Thoreau's Resistance to Civil Government

     "Resistance to Civil Government" is an essay written by Henry David Thoreau in 1849. It details Thoreau's ideas on what the structure and function of government should be and contains some social commentary and criticism by him as well. The work itself is slightly contradictory as a whole. The first line clearly expresses Thoreau's belief that "That government is best which governs least," yet the work goes on to explain that, though it may not be ideal, it is necessary for a government to be in place. Thoreau describes that due to the inherently selfish and egocentric nature of man, a government of some sort is necessary on a practical level, even though it should not be theoretically. One of the reasons Thoreau dislikes government is because government get its power from the the strongest group, but not necessarily the right (intellectually or morally) group. To attempt to compensate for the inevitable errors and evils that come with government, Thoreau pleads to individuals to do what they believe is ethically right, even if goes against what the government says. He also suggests that people distance themselves from the institution of government as much as possible, positing that one cannot see it for what it really is if one is part of it. Ultimately, Thoreau is not calling for the abolition of government altogether, he just want a better and differently organized one. He asserts that the highest and most ideal form of society is one in which the individual is recognized and allowed to live and act for himself without being controlled by others.

--Wald der Unerbittlich

Jefferson's Declaration of Independence

     Thomas Jefferson's original submission of the Declaration of Independence and the final document as we know it today have several significant difference between them. In fact, had Jefferson's version gone on to be ratified in its entirety, the United States of America as we know it today would almost likely be a very different place. The most obvious and important omission in Congress's final draft is the paragraph dealing with slavery. Jefferson originally intended for the Declaration of Independence to put an end to slavery in America. Unfortunately, in order to get enough support from all of the colonies to ratify the document, the prohibition of slavery had to be eliminated. Another interesting difference between the two is the removal of "inherent" in the second paragraph to describe the rights of all men. In the changed version, human rights are described as merely inalienable. Perhaps the writers wanted to suggest that natural rights can (or at least should) not be taken away from anyone, but they are not necessarily a given; that is to say, not everyone is born into a situation where they already have these rights, but nevertheless, all humans should have these rights. Lastly to be discussed, in Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence, the last sentence reads: "And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor," but the last sentence of the current Declaration reads: "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." This change seems to have been made to indicate a religious affiliation for the United States. I would expect that this alteration was made to garner support for the document from the strongly Puritan and other religious colonies.

--Wald der Versäumnis

The American Scholar

As opposed to writing seven or so separate blogs about different parts of Ralph Waldo Emerson's "The American Scholar," I feel it would be more efficient to simply write one very long, comprehensive blog on the entire work–an essay if you will.

     Ralph Waldo Emerson is commonly referred to as the Father of American Literature. It is not difficult to see why. During a time when there was not yet a true "American" identity, Emerson stepped up to the plate to try to move people to create one. In "The American Scholar," Emerson outlines the way he thinks American, if not all human society should work. This work describes how all different members of society should act, but it is particularly aimed toward the scholar (hence the name of the essay). In essence, "The American Scholar" serves as a guide for intellectualism comprising of three parts: an overview of an individual's proper place in society, the proper methods and sources for learning, and a description of the duties of an American scholar.
     The first section of "The American Scholar" can be summed up quite simply as "know your place and stay there." Emerson goes to great lengths to stress the important differences between man and Man. The lowercase former denotes and individual man of no particular of exceptional importance; the uppercase latter denotes mankind as a whole, collectively describing all lowercase "men" working together. Emerson stresses that it is very important that we are all working together, towards the same goal. He uses the human body as a metaphor for societal "Man," asserting that "the state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters, — a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man." Like a man's individual body parts would not be exceptionally useful were they disconnected and just haphazardly strewn about the ground, Man's individual parts, which are in fact individuals themselves, cannot do anything truly useful on their own or working against one another. For example, one random farmer in the middle of nowhere working solely for himself is no more useful to society than a random arm lying on the floor is useful to a person on the other side of the room. According to Emerson, only by working together as a species, or at least as a nation can we truly make any forward progress.
    The second section of this work deals with how a scholar should go about learning. Emerson says that there are three sources that the aspiring intellectual should look to for knowledge and enlightenment. The first and most important is nature. By simply observing and analyzing the world around us, we can learn a great deal about it. Although man's natural instinct is to try to categorize and compartmentalize the things that he observes, Emerson instructs the scholar to instead try to discover the interconnectedness of all things in the universe.
     The second source of knowledge, both in order of appearance and in importance, is the "mind of the past." This is more or less just learning from already has been made known. The best and most obvious example of the mind of the past is books. Emerson has conflicting feelings towards books. On the one hand, books are  wonderful "jumping off points"–a places from which the scholar can draw inspiration and insight into the world around them and into themselves. On the other hand, one must steer clear of falling into the trap of emulating or mimicking the style or ideas of previous thinkers. Emerson even goes so far as to state that "[it is] better [to] never see a book, than to be warped by its attraction clean out of [one's] own orbit, and made a satellite instead of a system." This warning means that while it is important for the scholar to be aware of the work of previous thinkers, he should under no circumstances imitate them.
     The last and least important way for a scholar to attain knowledge, according to Emerson, is through action. It is not acceptable for the intellectual to just hole away in his room and do nothing but study all the time; he must also actively contribute to society in one way or another. One must avoid the pitfalls of bookwormery and valetudinarianism. To put it concisely, pure raw information by itself is useless, to the individual and even more to society. One must have experience to go along with knowledge to make it practical and meaningful.
     The final section of "The American Scholar" explains the duties of the scholar. Emerson quickly makes known that he is aware of the difficulty of the situation into which he is directing the intellectual. Regardless, he explicitly demands that the scholar put his heart and soul into everything he does. It is both selfish and illogical to forgo the pursuance of new information and knowledge for reasons of personal angst or tiredness. The scholar must work long hours, alone and likely miserable, just to produce a work that may or may not be accepted by society. Furthermore, and perhaps above all, the scholar should never withhold information or be afraid to discover it because of societal taboos or stigmas. He should adamantly risk reputation and life alike to put forth new ideas into the world. Emerson say that "in self-trust, all the virtues are comprehended. Free should the scholar be, — free and brave. Free even to the definition of freedom." He should pursue his own individual thoughts and ideas and not be influenced by anyone or anything else, especially a government.
     Throughout "The American Scholar," there seem to be an ever-present paradox–that of the individual versus the masses, man versus Man. The solution to this apparent dilemma is balance. A scholar must be a part of the whole, but not like the other parts. To connect back to the body part analogy, if one's body was made up entirely of just one structure, like a hand, the body would be just as useless as if the parts were not connected at all. What Emerson is ultimately trying to stress is that ideas and ways of thinking should be very much individualized, but the the ideas and information should be put to uses that benefit all of society. By putting all the unique thoughts and inventions of different people together, the end result is a massively diverse store of knowledge and wisdom and technology that is hugely rewarding to society as a whole.

--Wald der Völlig

William Apess' "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man" and Samson Occom's "A Short Narrative of My Life"

William Apess' "An Indian's Looking Glass for the White Man" is a work written to defend the Native Americans against discrimination by white people. Apess uses a combination of logical and religious reasoning to appeal to his readers. Most of the logical reasons he states involve exposing the white man's hypocrisy and evil, such as when he mentions asks if "different skins were put together, and each skin had its national crimes written upon it—which skin do you think would have the greatest?"By asking this, Apess is bringing attention to the fact that not only do white people have an inordinately high number of crimes commited by their race, but also the fact that the Native Americans have an inordinately low number. Apess' religious reasoning consisted of him referencing Bible verses in which the equality of all people is mentioned and also logically defending the status of other races using religious logic. He states that if other races besides white are disgraceful to God, then "it appears that he has disgraced himself a great deal—for he has made fifteen colored people to one white and placed them here upon this earth."

Occom's work is a stark contrast of Apess' work. Occom seems to make no attempt to defend his people or bring attention to the evils of the white man. His aptly named autobiography seems to simply detail some key events of his life. Of course, the entirely thing is absolutely inundated in religion and religious exclamation. The only way this work seems to try to appeal to people to look at Native Americans in a new light is through pity, in such lines as "I believe it is because I am a poor Indian... [that] I Can’t help that God has made me So."

 --Wald der Eins

What Indians Would Have to Say to Us Today

If the Native Americans who lived in the time of the works we have been reading were alive today, I don't believe they would be exceptionally happy. When the Europeans came over to the New World, they obliterated most of the population of Indians already living here. Not only that, but to add insult to injury, we also took their land that they considered sacred and industrialized and polluted it. The Indians obviously had to make huge adaptations to their lives in order to survive. They had to learn English, move from their homes, and completely change their way of life. As for what they would say about modern America, I think they would be simply appalled. I love technology as much as the next guy, but from the point of a 18th century Native American, the way we live today would probably be considered an abomination. The waste and apathy towards the environment that fill our everyday lives would be travesties to the old Indians.

--Wald der Unvernünftig