Proposed Reading Schedule

Little Women

Chapters 1-3: Read & post by Dec 6.
Chapters 4-6: Read & post by Dec 13.
Chapters 7-9: Read & post by Jan 3.
Chapters 10-12: Read & post by Jan 10.
Chapters 13-15: Read & post by Jan 17.
Chapters 16-18: Read & post by Jan 24.
Chapters 19-21: Read & post by Jan 31.

That's about half the book, so at this pace it's going to take a while. Let's start out & see if this schedule is realistic. Now that it's been written down it's looking a bit drug out. We'll have to see how it goes. This schedule would probably take us into March.

Approaching the Book

How do you want to do this book? Do we want to do things in a more orderly fashion - a set goal for a chapter, that sort of thing? Or do you want to just read & post our thoughts as we go along?

I was sort of leaning toward a more orderly reading. A chapter a week, 30 pages a week, what have you. Then we could look at those questions I collected in the side bar, or other thoughts the reading spawned. Maybe aim to do a post every week, excepting some holiday weeks, of course. Personally, I think I'd get more out of a more organized approach, and that way we might get several discussions of different elements of the book going on, as we're almost sure to notice different things.

What do you think?

Getting Back Into the Swing of Things

Right on! I am so in.

Now I just need to find a bookstore here in my new neighborhood so I can go out and acquire Little Women and get on the ball with reading. Maybe I'll just pickup a copy when I'm up at the parents' house this weekend.. hehe.

Yay for new books!

Little Women

Kate & I were thinking that it would be nice to take a break from all the Serious Nonfiction we've read and try a nice fiction book. We were planning to read Little Women by Louisa May Alcott next. I figure that we could officially "start" right around the 1st of December, if that's something that's going to work for those that want to participate.

America's Constitution: a biography

I picked up a book from the library, America's Constitution: a biography. I haven't gotten very far in it, but I thought that I'd post a bit from it here & some of my thoughts as we haven't been working on 1421 recently. (Speaking of 1421, do you want to go back to that, or move on, now that the wedding is done?)

Preface

America's Constitution beckons -- a New World Acropolis open to all. Ordained in the name of the American people, repeatedly amended by them and for them, the document also addresses itself to them. It does its work in strikingly clean prose (as law goes) and with notable brevity. Its full text, including amendments, runs less that eight thousand words, a half hour's read for the earnest citizen. The document's style thus invites us to explore its substance, to visit and regularly revisit America's legal city on a hill.

Acropolis. An interesting choice of words. I wasn't entirely certain what it meant, so the first order of business is to get a definition to work from:

Acropolis (from Wikipedia): Acropolis (Gr. akros, akron, edge, extremity + polis, city, pl. acropoleis) literally means city on the edge (or extremity). For purposes of defense, early settlers naturally chose elevated ground, frequently a hill with precipitous sides.

The Constitution, a "New World Acropolis." A bastion of defense. A well defended hill with "precipitous sides." It's a very interesting analogy for a document. What is it defending? What sort of precipitous fall awaits outside the Constitution? It will be interesting to see what the author has to say about this. The Acropolis is a monument, a wonder of the world. I think that the Constitution is certainly no less.

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Savior declared, “I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80). Friend, Sep 1987, Ezra Taft Benson.

Perhaps the precipitous fall is the fall from Divinely Revealed freedoms into the more run-of-the-mill tyranny of ordinary governments. The loss of freedoms and rights our Maker intended for His children to have. President Benson was certainly clear that the Lord is pleased with the Constitution:

But we honor more than those who brought forth the Constitution. We honor the Lord who revealed it. God Himself has borne witness to the fact that He is pleased with the final product of the work of these great patriots.

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith on August 6, 1833, the Savior admonished: “I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6).

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval on the Constitution of this land. ibid.

America's Constitution beckons -- a New World Acropolis open to all. Ordained in the name of the American people, repeatedly amended by them and for them, the document also addresses itself to them. It does its work in strikingly clean prose (as law goes) and with notable brevity. Its full text, including amendments, runs less that eight thousand words, a half hour's read for the earnest citizen. The document's style thus invites us to explore its substance, to visit and regularly revisit America's legal city on a hill.

Most citizens have declined the invitation. Many could probably recite at length from some favorite poem, song, speech, or scripture, yet few could quote by heart even a single paragraph of the supreme law of our land, one of the most important texts in world history.

It's sad, but true. I recently became aware of my own Constitutional ignorance. Talking to others around me has revealed theirs, even to include the lady that was recently elected to the State Assembly! She had no better idea of what is in the Constitution than anyone else I've spoken to. Interestingly, her attacks on her opponent were particularly vicious where the opponent (who was well versed in Constitutional ideas and liberties) was championing limited government. Limited government and personal responsibility have become very unpopular ideas of late.

Reading this book is a step in my plan to correct my own ignorance. I feel that, given that nearly every prophet of the restoration as talked about the importance of the Constitution and the Divine origin of the liberties it secures, I should put some time and effort into getting to know it better, to understand the principles that the Founders were trying to put into practice. Clearly there is more at work here than just some good ideas that some smart men got together and wrote about 200-some-odd years ago.

Most citizens have declined the invitation. Many could probably recite at length from some favorite poem, song, speech, or scripture, yet few could quote by heart even a single paragraph of the supreme law of our land, one of the most important texts in world history. Lawyers, politicians, journalists, and opinion leaders converse fluently about legal dictums and doctrines that appear nowhere in the Constitution itself while slighting many intriguing words and concepts that do appear in the document. For instance, we rarely stop to think about what lay beneath the Constitution's promise of a "more perfect Union," or why the Founders required presidents to be at least thirty-five years old, or how the Fourteenth Amendment built upon earlier bans on "Titles of Nobility" when it made everyone "born" in America a "citizen[]." University professors who teach constitutional law often neglect to assign the document itself. The running joke is that reading the thing would only confuse students. The joke captures an important truth. Without background materials placing the Constitution in context, a modern reader may miss much of its meaning and richness.

I certainly would not be able (yet) to recite any of the Constitution. I'm still pondering what I would like to memorize. I may start with just the Preamble. There's so much in there. It does not surprise me at all that Universities neglect the Constitution itself, even in "Constitutional Studies" courses. The Constitution, to my reading, seems to be diametrically opposed to many of the popular ideas about government. We wouldn't want anyone to notice that our own government is operating outside of its authority, now would we! Of course not. If "We the People" were aware, I like to think that We would reign in the government, force it back to its proper place and size, and many who now enjoy power would loose it. Constitutional principle seems to be entirely missing from education, apparently at all levels! No wonder we have no Patriot-statesmen like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in our day: we are not teaching the potential patriots the principles that would light the fire in them!

This book seeks to reacquaint twenty-first century Americans with the written Constitution. In the pages that follow, I invite readers to join me on an interpretive journey through the document, from its first words to its last clause. Along the way, we shall explore not merely what the Constitutions says, but also how and why it says these things. How did various provisions at the Founding intermesh to form larger patterns of meaning and structures of decision making? How did later generations of constitutional Amenders reconfigure the system? Why did the Founders and Amenders act as they did? What lessons did they deduce from the distant past and from their own experiences? Which historically available models did they copy, and which plausible alternatives did they overlook or reject? What immediate problems were they trying to solve? Which long-range threats and possibilities did they espy on the horizon, and which future developments did they fail to foresee? What material and ideological resources did they command, and what practical constraints did they confront? How and why did their political opponents take issue with them? Who got to participate in the various decisions to ordain and, later, amend America's supreme law?

These are some very interesting questions. I look forward to seeing the author's answers. Right now most of them are things that I have not previously considered.

The Constitution has given rise to a remarkable range of interpretations over the years. In the chapters that follow I offer my own take: This book is an opinionated biography of the document. For example, while I try to say at least something in passing about every paragraph of the document, I pay special attention to those aspects of the Constitution that are, in my view, particularly significant or generally misunderstood. Because readers deserve to be told about other views, this book's endnotes identify contrasting perspectives (and also, where appropriate, furnish additional elaboration). In a brief Postscript, I summarize the main areas where my method and substance are, for better worse, distinctive. For convenience, this book's Appendix contains the complete text of the Constitution, keyed to the corresponding pages of my narrative.

Too bad the main stream media doesn't preface its reporting with a similar disclaimer!

Our story begins -- where else? -- at the beginning, with the Constitution's opening sentence, conventionally known as the Preamble. This sentence bids us to ponder basic questions about our Constitution and our country. How democratic was the Constitution of 1787-1788? Did it bind Americans into an indivisible nation? If so, why?

--Pages xi-xii

Ponderings

Well, I haven't done a thing with our "assigned" book, but I've been reading nonetheless. And it's been making me think, and I've been meaning to post a bit about it.

1st book: The Secret Garden.

I read this book in school. Probably late elementary or junior high school. Likely both, actually. I liked The Secret Garden. It's one of the titles that was in that box that vanished. Anyway, I've replaced it now. Twice, actually. Seems that I picked up one at a thrift shop and one at Barnes & Nobel, but I couldn't tell you which one came first. That's probably why I've got two. Anyway, reading The Secret Garden is a much different journey the second time around.

Before when I read it, it was an enjoyable story, but it never was much more than a nice story. Now, I wonder things: what happens to Colin and Mary after the story? It's a pretty idealic view of them that's presented in the book. And a mighty remarkable transformation, all from nothing more than getting out and gardening. Having worked with troubled kids, I have a hard time with the abrupt cessation of Colin's tantrums. But that aside, the way that the book is written makes me want to think about myself, and the changes that I need to make. And this seems quite remarkable to me! I watch the things that change first in Mary, then Colin, and finally in Mr. Craven, and it seems like such a hopeful, encouraging thing: "Look here, see how far gone these three were, and they managed to change, so surely you can too." Seems to be the message in the pages of that book. It's very interesting.

The 2nd Book: The Well-Trained Mind.

I've read this one before too, though it's not been as long as The Secret Garden. I was going back over what Mrs. Bauers recommends for the study of History, and looking at her ideas for time-lines. She says:

The time line can be simple (birth and death dates recorded in red pencil, political events in green, scientific discoveries in purple, and so forth). Or it can be as complected as the student likes (adorned with drawings and cutout pictures: notebook-paper-sized inserts hung above or below a particular date to allow for expansion -- for example, a month-by-month account of the Civil War or a year-by-year description of Arab conquests of the seventh century). (Well-Trained Mind, page 271)

This, along with the interesting things she was recommending for kids to study, made me want to pull out my Book of Centuries and see what I can learn about History. I don't have any of the resources she recommends (yet), but I do have an Institute Manual on the history of the Church. It's got some pretty interesting stuff in there. They actually start with the Apostasy, and so I included a map of the area covered by the early church, added the date of the Nicean Council, and a few other early things like that. I'm using my scrapbooking pens, at least for now, to add a bit of color to the dates. It really does seem to make it more readable and easier to tell what's going on.

Ideas For a New Book

Seeing as we've been stalled on the discussion action, I suggest that we think about picking a new book to read. I ran across a website with a couple of likely possiblities here, or if ya'll have seen anything that looks interesting recently, we could do that to. Whadya think?

Chapter 9

This was a most interesting chapter. Like my previous post said, I was excited by the world map and the thought paths that it led me down. And the remainder of the chapter did not disappoint.

Mr. Menzies continued his narrative outlining the path of Admiral Zhou Man's fleet. In four months they went 16,000 nautical miles, down the western coast of North and South America; from Canada to Panama. Along the way, he surmised that there would be wrecks. He researched that theory and found some evidence to support his theory. But more concrete than even the supposed Chinese wrecks, was the evidence of Chinese settlements along those same areas.

It fascinated me to read about the reports of the settlements. For example, in 1874 Stephen Powers, an official inspector appointed by the government of California, spent years researching and collecting information on the language tribes of California. He claimed to have evidence of a Chinese colony not too far from where a wreck site that Mr. Menzies investigated (pg 245). Sadly, they were decimated by European diseases.

Other examples were given on pages 246 to the end of the chapter. Discussions about how they found sites where the settlers had intermarried with the American Indians, evidenced by the mixing of customs: building walls around cities, rice patties, even linguistic evidences.

Mr. Menzies goes on to talk about how the Chinese must have encountered the Mayan civilization (pg. 249 - 253). He goes into some detail about the Mayan history and culture. I couldn't help but think about the Nephites and the Lamanites. The Mayans had beehives, built temples, had networks of trade established. It makes me wish that we had more information on the Mayans and the Aztecs.. I would love to know more.

2000 Girls & Chinese Diplomacy

2000 Girls

Geez, no wonder the harems are places of politics and intrigue! 2000 women, cooped up with (at least according to popular depictions) nothing to do, but if they can attract his attention they can have the ear of the Emperor. Or they can have nothing. Yikes. Talk about catty!(pg 50)

History Repeats

I'm neither a student of economics or of Chinese history, but it seems to me that history is beginning to repeat itself:

Rulers paid tribute to China in return for trading privileges and protection against their enemies, but China always gave its trading partners a greater value of goods -- silks and porcelain at discounted prices, often funded by soft loans -- than was received from them. They were thus in perpetual debt to China. (page 52, emphasis added)

The Chinese preferred to pursue their aims by trade, influence and bribery rather than by open conflict and direct colonization. (page 60)

We keep hearing about how China has become a major purchaser of American national debt. Looks like this preference for having other nations in debt to them is a well-established policy. And why not? Any country that we owe money to has that to hold over our heads! "Do what we want or we'll make you pay up." No wonder the dollar is weak. Surely there is a lesson here to be learned: PAY OUR DEBTS!

Halley's Comet

So, my first question is that since the Chinese have been tracking this comet since before Christ (page 55), why in the world is it named after a 17th Century Englishman?? In any case, the information in Wikipedia about Halley's Comet is pretty interesting. I remember its visit in 1986. But I don't know that I should plan on making it as long as 2061 to see the next visit. And this comet is a "short period" comet!

America's Name - Italian or Bristolian?

I'm not actually finished with Chapter 9 yet, however, this chapter has already sparked my thoughts and led me down some tangential paths and has given me several days worth of information to research and learn about.

So it all started with the world map, Universalis Cosmographia, published in May of 1507, drawn by cartographer Martin Waldseemüller. This map, Mr. Menzies says, is "the first to chart latitude and longitude with precision" (p. 238).

While reading in this book I've always been fascinated by the descriptions of the evolution of the maps. Not so much the actual fundamental details and inner-cog workings of how they did it, but it's fascinating to watch as they get more and more accurate and similar to our world view of today. I have had to reshape my thinking by a new found admiration I have for these early explorers. Their understanding of math and astronomy, and whatever other sciences necessary for them to figure out longitude and latitude and draw amazingly accurate maps while sailing around on wooden boats without any fancy tools, demands greater respect than what I had previously been giving to these people.

ANYWAY, that's not where I was going with this entry.

Mr. Menzies comments only briefly on page 238 that this world map of 1507, that it was the first to have called these two continents "America" in writing. And he leaves it at that. No more details, just moves goes on from there.


However, the statement that this map was "the first ever to call the continent 'America' " made me realize I had no idea where America got its name. Of course it had to come from somewhere, but where?


In doing some searches I found many websites. However, I quickly discovered that the name America is surrounded by as much controversy and conflicting stories as is the history of who discovered her first! Ah, history and its many keepers.


So, here is what I've found:

"America" - Possible Origin #1
Americo Vespucci: Italian explorer who first realized that the Americas were two continents, independent of Asia (c.1499). Along with the world map drawn by Waldseemüller, there was an accompanying book, Cosmographiae Introductio, published by the same author. This book explains that the name was derived from the Latinized version of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci's name, Americus Vespucius, in its feminine form, "America", as the other continents all have Latin feminine names. However, news traveled slowly back in the day and eventually that name was withdrawn by Waldseemüller after he realized that Columbus arrived on that continent before Vespucci. Still, the name stuck.

"America" - Possible Origin #2
Richard Amerike: a wealthy Bristol merchant Richard Amerike, who was an overseas trader living just outside the city in Long Ashton (c. 1480). I found an article that said that previous to this time, Bristol merchants bought salt cod in Iceland until the King of Denmark stopped the trade in 1475. In l479, four Bristol merchants received a royal charter to find another source of fish and trade. This article purports that the new source was the Americas. And, the continent was named as such because Richard Amerike was largely the funder of the expedition. It is indicated that on the fishing map, the name America was used and that Vespucci was given a copy of these maps. Also, there is reported to be a letter in the Spanish National Archives confirming that Bristol merchants had traveled to the Americas first and the maps was also sent to Columbus for his journey. So, that area had been called America before 1507, there just weren't any extant maps to prove it.

Both of these stories have compelling points. However, nowhere do they factor in the Chinese maps that Mr. Menzies indicated were the possible reference maps for that 1507 world map, so who really knows?? I'm inclined to think that due to the largely European slant on all of our current, mainstream history, the name probably caught on from Mr. Waldseemüller's world map. Plus, I think it fitting that Mr. Vespuccio get the naming rights since he's [the European] accredited with the discovery of it being its own continent.


But what if it was a mixture of both? I can see that too. Everybody is sharing maps, right? So, maybe the Bristolians did come first. And it was called America on those maps, and it was just easier to refer to it as that when Americo Vespuccio used the maps for his journey. And what if Mr. Waldseemüller, the poor stay at home cartographer, had no idea why Vespuccio referred to it as America. So, he just guessed in his book, and his book was published and then people believed it forever.


So much speculation! Isn't this fun? :)



Anyway, my conclusion: I just don't know.

However, some purport that it's a shame that America wasn't named for Columbus. However, I think that since the man lived and died thinking he'd found the Indies and never really knew it was its own continent, regardless the origin, it's ok that the Americas weren't named for him.