The advertising theme came up quite a few times in class today, but maybe that wasn't such a bad place to end up. J. Hector has obviously written this document to appeal to neutrals in Europe. By using the "Just Plain Folks" propaganda, he highlights the successes of American in contrast with Europe's failures. The following excerpts illustrate my point:
Here are no aristocratical families, no courts, no kinds, no bishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a few a very visible one...Some few towns excepted, we are all tillers of the earth, from Nova Scotia to West Florida.
Here, Hector promotes the equality (or "egality") of all men. He even makes the comparison when speaking of employers who regard their employees as equals, rather than submissive workers. On the same note, we can draw a contradiction similar to the one we stumbled upon in class. Hector says, "For instance, it is natural to conceive that those who live near the sea, must be very different form those who live in the woods; the intermediate space will afford a separate and distinct class." He continues to differentiate between the people in areas near the sea and those of the middle settlements who "are purified by their cultivation of the earth" with the rash, aggressive people of the great woods. If America is a nation of nationalism and unity, why were citizens categorized by their inhabited regions and provinces?
On a different note, two excerpts really seemed to contradict one another.
What attachment can a poor European emigrant have for a country where he had nothing? The knowledge of the language, the love of a few kindred as poor as himself, were the only cords that tied him.
From this passage, I think I can make the generalization that Hector's ideas regarding language differ from Hayakawa's. Hayakawa felt that language was the glue that held a society together, the basis for a group of people. It seems that Hector finds language to be something that may be quickly forgotten; it is not binding.
Later, Hector continues:
The inhabitants of Canada, Massachusetts, the middle provinces, the southern ones will be as different as their climates; their only points of unity will be those of religion and language.
Now it seems that Hector and Hayakawa's ideas about language are more similar. I can't be too sure, though.
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think the idea in the first statement is that there is more to national unity than just language. Language certainly can be used to hold a society together, but if it's the only adhesive the society might quickly fall apart. Hector is taking advantage of the neutrals' sense that their country does not share the same values as them and that those values could be cultivated in America.
It's also interesting how in the second statement Hector includes religion as something that binds a society together. Religion generally carries with it a set of morals and values. So, it seems that Hector is making the case that language in and of itself cannot bind a society, but that language attached to a set of values can hold a society together. He seems to be arguing that societies can be "custom made" in America...
Thoughts?
Emily T.
I don't believe that Hector is saying that language is quickly forgotten. Hector does recognize the power of language as a social bond, just as Hayakawa did. He's merely stating that in a land where one has nothing, one is still connected to his country through language and his countrymen.
Regarding the "contradiction" you pointed out, I believe that the two thoughts from Hector do not necessarily clash with each other. On the one hand, Hector applauds the relative equality of the Americans on the social scale. On the other, he points out that groups of people can be unique and different depending upon where they live. Those groups might be separate, but they still can be equal.
In the actual document, he speaks of equality, but then separates people by provinces and regions and religions according to certain "characteristics." But as Mr. Lazarow said today in class, he was making this point to bring light to the fact that America was a Neoclassic nation, a nation of perfectable people. In this new, unmarked land, there was hope of advancing that was no longer possible in Europe. In Europe, people were forever frozen in unchanging roles, working under corrupt men.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment