The Fall of the House of Usher

I really enjoyed the “Fall of the House of Usher” by Edgar Allan Poe. While it is a very sick and twisted story, it is really well written and it instills very vivid images into ones mind. I think that my favorite part about this story is the connection between the house and the brother and sister living there. There are many similarities between the descriptions of the house and Roderick Usher, at one point he describes both the house and Roderick in relation to opium users. Also, as Roderick and his sister get sicker and eventually die, so does the house. The crack in the wall that at the beginning is no bother, but by the end of the story during the deaths of the Usher’s, the house cracks in two. I assume that the progress of the house is also in direct relationship to the Usher line, and with each fall of an Usher, the house began to diminish.

In addition, we discussed in class how Roderick’s illness could not be pinpointed to a specific disease. I think that the House of the Usher’s is a character in its self, which is the cause to the downfall of the Usher’s. I also think that once you enter it is like another reality, one that sucks who ever enters the house into its undertakings. This can be seen when the narrator enters the house and stays for a while, making it possible to track his mental state into its demise. Thus, I think that the house is like an infectious disease that is bringing all those who reside there down with it.

I also think there is a connection between the brother and the sister. As the sister gets worse physically, so does the brother mentally. It said how they are twins, if she really does exist; I find it interesting that at the moment they came together they both instantly died. This death of the final Usher’s brings the death of the House of Usher’s as well. Which also has something to do with the end of their bloodline. “while I gazed, this fissure rapidly widened—there came a fierce breath of the whirlwind—the entire orb of the satellite burst at once upon my sight—my brain reeled as I saw the mighty walls rushing asunder—there was a long tumultuous shouting sound like the voice of a thousand waters—and the deep and dank tarn at my feet closed sullenly and silently over the fragments of the House of Usher”

George Fitzhugh

Southern Thought by George Fitzhugh was interesting, because he felt that slavery was beneficial whether it is black slavery or white it is needed. What I liked about this piece is that when making his opinion, he backed it up with facts and good information. While I may not agree with it, it was very well argued. I did not feel like it was insulting, or racist, rather I feel that he believed fully in what he was saying and wasn’t just trying to conform to the social norm. Unlike Thomas Jefferson who preached against slavery, while owning slaves and having relationships with one of his slaves.

In reading Southern Thought, it seems as though he has a lot of pride in the South. He says, “France and England, who fairly represent the whole of so-called free society, are actively engaged in the slave-trade under more odious and cruel form than were ever known before. They must justify their practices; and, to do so, must adopt and follow Southern thought.” He feels that southern thought and southern example should rule the world because their form of slavery is fair and needed. They are nice to their slaves, have acted civilized and according to the bible, so they are a thriving economy, one in which all other country’s should follow.

He argues that to defend and justify only black slavery is unjust and against the cause of the south. It is ignoring the fact that in all states each race may and is being held in slavery. So his argument isn’t racist and suggesting what others have suggested about slavery, he only argues that our economy depends on slavery and uses it as vital lifeline.

In a sense, we still have slavery today. We export many of our goods to be made in factories in third world countries by people who are paid barely anything. It is out of sight, and of no mention by many as to keep people from realizing that slavery still exists to this day.

Swallow Barn

I thought that Swallow Barn was a romantic portrayal of the old south. The first chapter is very descriptive and uses a lot of visual imagery. He describes swallow barn as illustrating, " three epochs in the history of the family. The main structure is upwards of a century old; one story high, with thick brick walls and a double-faced roof, resembling a ship, bottom upwards; this is perforated with small dormant windows, that have some such expression as belongs to a face without eye-brows." Not only is family shown to be very important in this story, but also the homes that have followed the families for generations seem to be of equal importance. It is very important in the south for such properties to stay in the family, and this house while old and aging, is beautiful because it is old.

John Pendleton Kennedy relies very much on southern stereotypes in this telling of swallow barn. Some stereotypes that are prevalent are, history is held in high regard, family is very important, pride, and the plantation as a symbol. The Plantation is often thought of as a trademark of the south, which makes it interesting that swallow barn isn’t the stereotypical plantation. It is falling apart and it has "shrunk a little at the joints, and left some crannies, through which the winds whisper all night long." when I think of plantations I think of huge white houses that tower over acres and acres of land.

Frank Meriwether is also an interesting character; he embodies all the stereotypes about how a southern gentleman should be. He is indecisive, complacent, handsome and well educated. When he goes to Washington, he becomes disturbed by the politics there, opinionated and brags of his knowledge. He then enters into this unsteady point of view, one day he feels one way and the next day it is another opinion. I do find it interesting that he contradicts the stereotype of religion in dealing with the southern gentleman. Meriwether doesn’t go to church but considers himself a high churchman, and is offered to a chance to speak at church but refuses.

Thomas Jefferson

This piece by Thomas Jefferson was a little easier to read then those on John Smith. It was also enticing; in the sense that it is this piece and others like it could be the start to racism and stereotypes. Hearing such an influential person speak on different cultures and things unfamiliar to them could have a real impact on shaping their opinions about what is different from them. I am definitely not saying that Thomas Jefferson caused racism and such stereotypes; I am only saying that he certainly provoked it, and added more influential opinions to the pot than the pre-existing ones. At the time no matter how contradicting, his word carried weight to it, certainly to those uneducated.

It is also somewhat scary that He can be so contradictory. At one moment he is pledging how wrong slavery is and how it is not our right to make decisions on other peoples lives, only god has this power. While at the same time he has slaves, and maybe he could be the nicest person to his slaves, but he still has them. I did not know that he had Aspergers Syndrome, it is very interesting and this may be an excuse for many things that he did. Such as the slavery issues, and his general opinions. However, I do not think it excuses him for what he said, especially about the poets. He says how Phyllis Wheatley does not deserve the title of poet, but this is all because of his bias against black people, women and her antislavery remarks. He also insulted Sancho, saying that he writes too much about feelings, and his writing was not worth his time. He however, is more forgiving to Sancho since he is a man.

I see a similarity between Thomas Jefferson and John Smith in that they both overtly contradict themselves. John Smith left England because he felt bullied, but then traveled to the new world and bullied others to come and colonize, using religion as a manipulation strategy. While Thomas Jefferson, points out how slavery is against god's will and immoral, during which he owns slaves himself. He also makes statements saying that while its bad, its necessary or else the economy will fail.

Thomas Jefferson made very crude statements about many things in order it seems, to follow his peers rather than to lead his peers.

Readings on John Smith

The two readings for class on Friday were interesting in the since that they were very different from each other. In his description of New England he sells the idea that colonizing is a duty under god. He pressures the people by manipulating information about the beliefs of their religion. This is unfair and seems to be a desperate move by John Smith to bully people into following him. The high opinions that he holds for himself can also be seen in the readings of a general history of Virginia. The point of this writing was to make him seem more legendary to the people he left and for those to colonize. As discussed in class he wrote this in third person to gain the sympathy of others in hopes to be considered a hero.

Both of these readings portray this importance for striving for land. By owning land somehow puts you in god’s good graces. However this obsession for land and possessiveness is contradictory to doing ‘good’. Those who colonized destroyed and changed the cultures of those who where there before by imposing their morals and beliefs, because of this need for land and the overtaking of property.