Labor and Suffer Together

          Winthrop writes: "We must delight in each other, make other's conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body" (pg. 51) This sentence, described by Vowell to be "one of the most beautiful sentences in the English language" is Winthrop's ideal city. The shining city upon a hill. Referred to in Winthrop's 1630 sermon A Model of Christian Charity, it was intended to be America. Regardless if surrounded by kings or common people, you were to be accepting of them and live as "members of the same body". Now however, this once golden phrase, this once "shining city" has worn itself out, revealing the hollow worthless core it really possesses
          I truly believe that the intent of the metaphor, when spoken by Winthrop, was to convey his dreams for the future New England, the future America. It was a way to express the community that he and all of the others around him were hoping to create. However, this is not the only time in history it has been used. “Let us resolve they will say of our day and our generation, we did keep the faith with our God, that we did act worthy of ourselves, that we did protect and pass on lovingly that shining city on a hill.” (Vowell, pg. 59) Reagan spoke these words the night before winning the 1980 presidential election. Was it his dream too, or was it simply a way to win over the hearts of his voters? Regardless, Reagan was undoubtedly a publicity stunt - a star. He had an image that, if changed, would not do good for his standings in the election.
          So what happened to this communitarian, neighbor loving side of the city on a hill? It was certainly lost when Reagan commented on the homeless being “homeless, you might say, by choice.”: “He couldn’t be more right- I have this fantasy that someday I’ll throw off the shackles of my clean sheets and pillow-top mattress and curl up on a sub-way vent in the rain.” (Vowell, pg. 60) The phrase has been tossed around as if it holds the key to unlock the hope in anyone's heart. In a way, this is true. It gives that image of the perfect city, where no one has to "curl up on a sub-way vent in the rain", and no one has to worry about where they will get their next meal. The sad truth, however, is that so many people do. We often forget to look at the realistic side of this "shining" city.
          Running against Reagan in 1984 was democrat Walter Mondale. He constantly tried to convey through his speeches that we are in fact not shining. That we, as a country would need to pull together and realize that things are not at all perfect, however as Vowell notes, "In the U.S.A., we want to sing along with the chorus and ignore the verses, ignore the blues", "no one is going to hold up a cigarette lighter in a stadium to the tune of 'mourn together, suffer together.'" (Vowell, pg.63) And so Reagan swept forty nine states. "The only state Mondale won was Minnesota, where he was from." (Vowell, pg.63) Mario Cuomo, (governor of New York at the time) said, “A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everything seems to be doing well,”.
          Winthrop truly believed in a shining city upon a hill. Regan used this belief to his advantage, striking the hope that we all at one point had inside us. Something he missed, however, was that to get there - to get to the top, you have to climb, and one man cannot hold a city upon his back. We must "labor and suffer together". A rather communitarian approach that has all but lost its luster over the years.

History is Written by the Writers

            "Imagination plays too important a role in the writing of history, and what is imagination but the projection of the author's personality." (Pieter Geyl) This sad realization is all too true. If there were scribes (lacking in both ignorance and partiality) sitting in on every soon-to-be historical event recording it without bias, history would not be the way it is today. "The quill-crazy New Englanders left behind libraries full of statements of purpose in the form of letters, sermons, court transcripts, and diaries. Most of what we know about the history of early New England is lifted straight out of Winthrop's wonderful journal and William Bradford's also wonderful Of Plymouth Plantation." (Vowell, pg.13)  But what if the Pequot were as "quill-crazy" as those that burnt them alive? What if they could write their stories, so when we looked back all we found were their diaries and letters? History is "a continuous, systematic narrative of past events", and who writes that but the author? In the case of the Pequot War, the authors were Puritans. Mason "praises the lord for 'burning them up in the fire of his wrath, and dunging the ground with their flesh: It is the Lord's doings, and it is marvelous in our eyes!'" (Vowell, pg.194
          The Puritans have been known to relate every event - regardless of its importance - to religion. If something good happened it was said that you were being rewarded, however if something bad happened it would be declared a punishment from god. "For a woman, it can't get any worse than bearing a still-born child, right? Oh, but it can, especially for a woman living in the Massachusetts Bay Colony" because a "still born child is to be seen as God's punishment of the parents. A stillborn 'monster' was obviously an even harsher divine judgement." (Vowell, pg.232) In this passage Vowell explains the Puritan's religious connections tied to everything. Mary Dyer had to secretly bury her still born child as to escape the judgment of others.
          This can be seen once again when Roger Williams looses his voice due to a bout of laryngitis. "Thus John Cotton later harangues Williams about his post-showdown laryngitis, 'When you over-heated yourself in reasoning and disputing against the light of [God's] truth, it pleased him to stop your mouth by a sudden disease, and to threaten to take your breath from you.'" (Vowell, pg.140) Cotton explains to Williams that he lost his voice due to his "disputing" against "God's truth". If the history we know was written by those that related laryngitis to religion and praised god for the burning children in the "fire of his wrath", we must question even the details we think to be fact. "To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity."
(Roy P. Basler)

The Wordy Shipmates: Sarah Vowell's Writing Style

           In Sarah Vowell's book The Wordy Shipmates, the tone is immediately set. From the first sentence to the last she continuously prods at the plethora of myopic views upheld by some of the more (if not most) ignorant characters in society. The first line reads "The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief. And by dangerous I don't mean thought-provoking. I mean: might get people killed." (Vowell, pg.1) This sentence alone is more telling than the title; it's a "taste test" for the entire book. Whether the next 248 pages takes them four weeks or four hours, the reader will know what's coming.
          This book is not the typical history lesson. It's surprisingly much more palatable and engaging to the reader (that is, if you enjoy blunt opinions). The way she uses sarcasm is not only fun and attention grabbing, but also necessary; there is no better way to respond to the cretinous and sometimes callow individuals that Vowell observes. Examples of her humorous writing style are thankfully common throughout the book, one in particular (explaining the difference between the puritans on the Mayflower and the puritans on the Arbella) caught me of guard considering its rather early placement, "... might look deep into their own hearts and identify their own semantic lines in the sand. For instance, a devotion to The Godfather Part II and equally intense disdain for The Godfather Part III. Someday they might find themselves at a bar and realize they are friends with a woman who can't tell any of the Godfather movies apart and asks if Part II was the one that had "that guy in the boat." Them's fightin' words, right?" (Vowell, pg. 5)
          As the humor in Vowell's writing is apparent, so are the connections to modern topics, (it's not like the puritan watched The Godfather on their voyage to New England). She often brings historical events out of the text and compares them with the world (and all of its problems) today. For example, Vowell compares the difference between the puritans on the Mayflower and the puritans on the Arbella, to the "seemingly trifling Sunni-versus-Shia rift in Islam" (pg. 5). It is clear that she has a striking proclivity to relate to modern day, (regardless if it's a topic, person, or idea), and whether her writing is loved or  despised, it is unarguably unique to herself as an author and an individual.