 |
|
VetLegion
|
|
Write a review for us, why don't you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quick summary
Four of Americas early regional cultures were founded by migrations from particular regions of Britain. While much attention has been given to the religious and class nature of these migrations, the regional aspects have been underemphasized.
The four are:
1. New England Puritans - largely from East Anglia/Lincolnshire migration in 1630-140.
2. Virginia - upper class largely gentry from southwest england - indentured servants from South england and London. 1640 to 1670.
3. Quaker Delaware Valley - largely from the north and North Midlands, esp the more isolated mountain communities. migration in 1670 to 1715
4. The "scots irish" backcountry - western Pennsylvania to Shenandoah to NC piedmont and SC upcountry. From Northern English/ southern Scottish Border (often but not alway via Ulster) 1700-1750.
Much of regional folkways, dialect, food, family relations, gender relations, architecture, etc explicable with reference to British regions of origin. Not only that, but attitudes toward freedom and political power heavily influenced by regional origin. 1787 was an (overlooked) compromise among conflicting regional viewpoints, and much of later American history can be explained in terms of these regional differences and conflicts - examples in Jacksonian era, Civil war, depression, even up to 1980s. Book was written in 1989 - Im sure hed have a field day with the 2004 election.
Whats missing: no extensive discussion of 1 . New York Dutch culture and its influence. 2. Emergence of Anglican elite in Massachusetts in 18th century 3. Influences of african americans. etc, etc. He was going to write a follow up series of books, but didnt.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
notions
Puritans - tough minded, intense, practical, group oriented - the least individualistic group in America. FDR the ultimate Puritan.
Quakers - individualist, libertarian leaning pacifists. Even more puritanical on sex than the Puritans, even while being the most liberal group on child rearing, education style, religious tolerance, female equality. Derive from Inner light philosophy - but that was to some extent product of poor north midland mountain village hostility to outsider church - and even to old Scandinavian folkways (danelaw).
One can gather how mix of modernized Puritan and Quaker worldviews leaves us with "blue states".
Virginia - low country south - hierarchical, traditional, patriachal conservative. Like quasi-fascist in the pop sense. Not in the proper sense though - still distrusts the state in a whiggish way. Leave me alone to rule over my serfs/black slaves/ employees etc.
Back country - big dumb white guys with guns. anarchic vigilante frontier types. (im still reading this section) Revivalist religion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
I have the book and have read it. Very interesting.
I've read a few negative reviews of it though (in academic journals that is), many say he glosses over details and doesn't provide enough evidence to back up his (sometimes sweeping) claims.
Although overall its a very good book. I especially enjoyed the linguistic parts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
quick summary
Four of Americas early regional cultures were founded by migrations from particular regions of Britain. While much attention has been given to the religious and class nature of these migrations, the regional aspects have been underemphasized.
The four are:
1. New England Puritans - largely from East Anglia/Lincolnshire migration in 1630-140.
2. Virginia - upper class largely gentry from southwest england - indentured servants from South england and London. 1640 to 1670.
3. Quaker Delaware Valley - largely from the north and North Midlands, esp the more isolated mountain communities. migration in 1670 to 1715
4. The "scots irish" backcountry - western Pennsylvania to Shenandoah to NC piedmont and SC upcountry. From Northern English/ southern Scottish Border (often but not alway via Ulster) 1700-1750.
Much of regional folkways, dialect, food, family relations, gender relations, architecture, etc explicable with reference to British regions of origin. Not only that, but attitudes toward freedom and political power heavily influenced by regional origin. 1787 was an (overlooked) compromise among conflicting regional viewpoints, and much of later American history can be explained in terms of these regional differences and conflicts - examples in Jacksonian era, Civil war, depression, even up to 1980s. Book was written in 1989 - Im sure hed have a field day with the 2004 election.
Whats missing: no extensive discussion of 1 . New York Dutch culture and its influence. 2. Emergence of Anglican elite in Massachusetts in 18th century 3. Influences of african americans. etc, etc. He was going to write a follow up series of books, but didnt. |
Sounds good.
Might pick it up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Oh I intend to.
I'm familiar with the hisitory of Puritan and Calvinist/Presbyterian settlement in North America- I've quoted before at length from the journals and histories they produced themselves.
|
Mainly to show that they were - shocked, Im totally shocked - intolerant, religious, Calvinist Christrians. What you havent emphasized is how they fit into their own time, and how they were distinctive in ways that ultimately proved to have progressive potential. It would seem that the origins of New England abolitionism, feminism, etc were pure coincidence.
Or look at those states in the US where gay commitment is legally recognized - it follows the pattern of New England settlement.
Simply identifying New England Puritans with contemporary fundies, mistakes the historic origins and differences in lifeway and approaches that may not show in the mass of the 17thc Puritan writing. To take one look at it - those 17thc century Calvinists had mass literacy, to read the bible, while southerners of border origins tended towards a more oral revival religion. Historically New England culture has been more bookish and literate - and this may be associated with some modern progressive movements - if you just focus on the CONTENT of what they were reading, and not the cultural fact of the emphasis on literacy, you would identify the Puritans with the revivalists, and not see the historic importance of the Puritans in leading to American literary culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Mainly to show that they were - shocked, Im totally shocked - intolerant, religious, Calvinist Christrians. |
Uh, no that isn't the case.
I was responding to people who had bought into the myths surrounding the early English settlements. In any case, Puritans (as the name tells you) weren't Calvinists, being instead those who wished to purify the Anglican Church.
Separatists were mainly Calvinists, however given the state of the Anglican Church in Engkland at the time, there were those who although calling themselves Anglicans, were not as high church as Laud, and whose doctrines shared some similarities with those expounded by Calvin.
They were indeed intolerant- and this is an aspect that is frequently glossed over in Disneyfied histories that celebrate Thanksgiving and don't point out how the Pilgrims survived by stealing corn supplies from Indian villages, or how the colonists exulted at the effects of European diseases on the Indians. It's distinctly unpleasant reading, even set in context.
It's also quite wrong to look back from present day successes in certain areas of civil rights legislation and anachronistically credit Cotton Mather or Bradford with them.
I don't identify the settlers with Christian fundamentalists of today- the settlers were comparatively better educated, for the most part, and hadn't yet made the mistake of trying to substitute faith for science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom
Uh, no that isn't the case.
quote:
I was responding to people who had bought into the myths surrounding the early English settlements. In any case, Puritans (as the name tells you) weren't Calvinists, being instead those who wished to purify the Anglican Church. |
My understanding is that despite working inside the Church of England, they very much were Calvinists. Im no expert on John Calvin, but every serious historian Ive read on either American or English Puritanism indicates that they WERE Calvinists.
quote:
Separatists were mainly Calvinists, however given the state of the Anglican Church in Engkland at the time, there were those who although calling themselves Anglicans, were not as high church as Laud, and whose doctrines shared some similarities with those expounded by Calvin. |
My understanding is that BOTH seperatists and puritans held with the essential doctrines of John Calvin.
quote:
They were indeed intolerant- and this is an aspect that is frequently glossed over in Disneyfied histories that celebrate Thanksgiving and don't point out how the Pilgrims survived by stealing corn supplies from Indian villages, or how the colonists exulted at the effects of European diseases on the Indians. It's distinctly unpleasant reading, even set in context. |
almost all europeans were intolerant of the natives to a greater or lesser degree. The quakers stand out as an exception, though to some degree William Penn deliberately picked a locale where the natives were relatively easy to get along with (the distinctively non-belligerent Leni Lenape) to try his experiment. If the Puritans are complex, so are the Quakers.
So complex, that you are forgetting your own distinction, and mixing Pilgrims (seperatists) with Puritans. These were distinct waves of migration, and for almost a century Plymouth remained a seperate colony from Massachusetts.
quote:
It's also quite wrong to look back from present day successes in certain areas of civil rights legislation and anachronistically credit Cotton Mather or Bradford with them. |
Well er, Im not sure. Thats the point that Fischer makes, and that IIRC Perry Miller made to some degree, etc - there are SUBSTANTIAL continuities in New England culture, and the "progressive" aspects DO have their roots in the Puritan aspects.
Two examples - 1. Puritan women, though not treated with the same rights as Quaker women, definitely were better treated than women in the southern colonies (where Anglican divines continued to debate if women had souls) and the roles of Puritan women were among the roots of New England feminism. 2. FDR proclaimed freedom from fear and freemdom from want as parts of freedom - this exact phrasing was used in 17th century New England, which had a distinctive and more positive view of freedom than elsewhere in the US, where freedom was more a right to be left alone.
quote:
I don't identify the settlers with Christian fundamentalists of today- the settlers were comparatively better educated, for the most part, and hadn't yet made the mistake of trying to substitute faith for science. |
They were profoundly different, in a great many ways.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by curtsibling
Britain apologises for dumping our whacked fundamentalists onto the virgin American colonies...
...We had to put them somewhere, and Australia was full up.
, |
"Let tyrants shake their iron rods,
And slav'ry clank her galling chains.
We fear not, we trust in God,
New England's God forever reigns.
Howe and Burgoyne and Clinton, too,
With Prescott and Cornwallis joined,
Together plot our overthrow,
In one infernal league combined.
When God inspired us for the fight,
Their ranks were broke,
their lines were forced,
Their ships were shattered in our sight,
Or swiftly driven from our coast.
The foe comes on with haughty stride,
Our troops advance with martial noise;
Their vet'rans flee before our youth,
And gen'rals yield to beardless boys.
What grateful off'ring shall we bring,
What shall we render to the Lord?
Loud hallelujahs let us sing,
And praise His name on ev'ry chord!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom
quote:
I doubt that very much- there were doctrinal differences between Puritans in the Anglican Church and say, for instance, Calvinist Presbyterians. |
IIUC primarily over church organization. Not over any fundamental Calvinist principles - total depravity of man, irrestible grace, limited atonement (salvation for a few), perserverence of saints, etc
quote:
'Puritan' in itself covered a wide swathe of beliefs, and was initially a term of abuse.
I have already said that there were similarities between some Anglican Puritans' beliefs and some Calvinist beliefs, but Calvinist and Puritan are not synonymous. |
They were not synonomous, cause not all Calvinists were Puritans, but IIUC all Puritans WERE Calvinists. IE Puritans were a subset of Calvinists.
quote:
Indeed, one reason why some of the Puritan and Separatist exiles left the Calvinist United Provinces was that they felt there was too little rigid observance of the Sabbath, and an excessive regard for the Sabbath was a distinctive feature of some Puritan and Separatist communities. |
Indeed - but the Puritan insistence on rigid Sabbath observence was not in contradiciton with the principles of John Calvin, IIUC, even if they were not required by said principles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:19
|
|
No, not all Puritans were Calvinists !
Thomas Crosby, the oldest English Baptist historian, in commenting about the London Confession and Particular (Calvinistic) and General (non-Calvinistic) redemption said:
"And I know that there are several churches, ministers, and many particular persons, among the English Baptists, who desire not to go under the name either of these heads; because they receive what they think to be truth, without regarding with what human schemes it agrees or disagrees."
Thomas Crosby--History of the English Baptists, Vol. I p. 174. 1740.
Let us turn to Thomas Armitage, respected Baptist historian from America to give us the details of the London Confession:
"By 1643, the Calvinist Baptist Churches in and about London had increased to seven, while the non-Calvinistic Churches numbered thirty-nine, forty-six in all. The English Calvinistic Churches, together with a French Church of the some faith, eight in all, issued a Confession of Faith in 1643."
History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage, 1887, p.460.
http://www.learnthebible.org/baptist_calvinists.htm
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2005 21:43
|