On behalf of Sarah Ayers

In “The Complete English Tradesman,” novelist Daniel Defoe boasts about how wonderful his homeland is. According to him England is the greatest nation. There are many attributes that England has ranging from climate to trade to actual physical appearances that make England in Defoe’s mind so great. I sit on the fence so to speak. There are some points he make that I agree with but there are other points that I would have to say he is alone on.

“That our men are the stoutest and best because, strip them naked from the waist upwards, and give them no weapons at all but their hands and heels, and turn them into a room or stage, and lock them in with the like number of other men of any nation, man for man, and they shall beat the best men you shall find in the world.” Defoe claims that English men are physically stronger and better than any other man of a different nation. He also says that the climate itself puts England over the top.

Another point Defoe has is the trade in England. He feels it is what makes England so monumental. The important people in his country are tradesmen. Wealth is synonymous with trading. “…whose blood is the most untainted, as they call it, with the low mixtures of a mechanic race, are found in these; and, as is said before, they generally go beyond them in knowledge of the world, which is the best education.”

I agree that at the time England was a powerhouse. Of all the nations they certainly had the upper hand on many world affairs. However, I do not agree with Defoe’s actual beliefs as to why England was as great as it was. He says that just the physical appearance puts Englishmen above and beyond. As I recall, the Vikings were rather large men themselves and their bloodline was still alive at this time. Trade certainly was a plus for them but I do not agree that being a tradesman altered your genetic make-up. Money can certainly to wonders and that is why I think tradesmen were so “perfect”.

On Behalf of Sunny Naasiri

What does Rainborow want? Why does Ireton disagree with him?

Sunny Naasiri

HIST 100-033

03/14/2006

Colonel Rainborow of England held a debate with Commissary Ireton regarding the rights of Englishmen during the 1647. Rainborow wanted to distribute equal rights to citizens of all social status. Permanent residents should have the privilege to vote during an election because Rainborow stresses on the human natural rights. Freedom should be granted in order to make a nation truly understand the value of liberty amongst citizens. Rainborow also disagrees about the strict laws about class hierarchies that limit a person’s rights and enslaves them to be bound into its service. Tyrannical was the word the colonel describes it because from his perspective, it is mostly nobles and kings who wielded full authority against common folks.

Commissary Ireton on the contrary states that people should subdue themselves to law because too much liberty could cause chaos and disarray. From the general’s point of view, the law should be above an individual’s liberty. Foreigners who were not born in England should also not be given property rights to buy lands because they have not dedicated themselves to the kingdom of England. Hence, Ireton is a person who seems manipulative and cunning because men are required to perform services for a country’s personal gain. Ireton’s character clings onto his militaristic ways that a strict order should be established between classes and therefore he does not truly understand the value of an individual’s rights.

From my perspective regarding this issue, there is a fine balance between natural rights and the law. People should not be subjugated by tyranny because it may cause a rebellion, they should be allowed to act freely in their homeland. On the contrary, if we are dealing with criminals then there should be a strict law because too much freedom can be hazardous because hot-headed and violent people may cause chaos in the land. In this case, there should be more freedom and less authority because human nature does not like control. Take a caged animal for example, would they like being locked up? Same goes to this.

GMU History 100, Western Civ, Sect 033 (Tulchin)

GMU History 100, Western Civ, Sect 033 (Tulchin)

Martin Luther, and the Inner and Outer self

Martin Luther gives a detailed explanation about the inner and outer man. Luther explains that the outer man and the inner man are two almost separate entities, and that what the outer entity, the body, does has no affect on the soul which is the inner self. When He talks about Christianity, his main point is that the inner self being the soul has a greater impact on where a man ends up in the after life than the body does.

Luther talks about the things that really make a good Christian. He emphasizes that the true actions and morals of a man are found within his soul, his inner self. Although the outer self can physically perform all of the traditions of a “Christian,” for example going to church and reading the Bible, it is the inner self that keeps the person from becoming a hypocrite. According to Luther, without the morals, faith, and Christian foundation planted in the inner soul, all the good deeds performed by body are of no value.

Along with his strong beliefs about the inner soul, Luther criticizes the Catholic Church. Through his 95 thesis, he causes many people to begin to doubt their faith in the church authorities. Rather than strengthening people’s faith, he allowed them to dig deeper in their personal relationship with God and establish a more grounded faith with in their soul.

Luther’s main point was that the most important aspect of being a Christian is the moral value engrained in the soul.