Brandon Katrena's Website:

From The Past to The Present to The Rational to The Logical

 

If you touch it, you might get a splinter in your hand. It comes from a nation consistently rated the number one place to live; however, you would not want to live there in the year 1349, as you could have gotten The Plague, as did about a third of the population. The country offers cradle to grave benefits, and it takes good care of its Citizens. And it was neutral during World War I. Many of its Citizens speak English, although that is not the official language. You might get the splinter in your hand from a Viking Ship, and the country is Norway.

 

“Save us, oh Lord, from the fury of the Norsemen,” was an English Prayer said about 900 years ago, said to Father God to try to get help from the Vikings, many of whom came from the nation of Norway. And you too might say that prayer if you saw dozens of men departing from wooden Viking ships, battle axes, swords, and shields in their hands, running towards your house from the beach, screaming “seier!” which means “victory” in Norwegian. The Vikings settled in England, Ireland, Iceland (which is really quite hospitable, despite its name), Greenland (which is really Not very hospitable, despite its name), North America, and in Normandy, and, in 1066, a descendent of the Norsemen, William the Conqueror of Normandy, landed in England, and he established Norman rule there.

 

No longer is that prayer about the Norsemen seriously said. And Modern-Day Norway is different than it was hundreds of years ago. Many of its Citizens speak English, and -- like many other European Nations -- its Socialistic Government offers cradle to grave benefits, paid for by taxes that take up about half of a person’s wages, and, according to the United Nations, Norway is the best place to live in the world.

 

During World War I, Norway was Neutral. During World War II, fought from 1939 to 1945, Norway was initially Neutral; however, Nazi Germany invaded anyway, and Norway was occupied by about 100,000 German Soldiers. After World War II, Norway found large oil reserves in the nearby sea, which helped create one of the largest Investment Funds, valued at about 400 billion dollars, which will help the country when the oil runs out. Serious crimes are few and far between, and running towards houses after disembarking from wooden Viking boats, with battle axes, swords, and shields in hand, are things of the past.  

 

Your College: an Excellent School that, via Synergy, I can Benefit

 

At 7:32 a.m. I squeeze the tube of toothpaste, and in a few minutes warm water envelopes my body. I begin the day doing activities ranging from helping in my Masonic Lodge to watching Ultimate Fighting Championship dvds to reading a good book to writing a good book to being a Board Member of a Non-Profit Foundation, which became incorporated in the state of Oregon in the year 2011, and which helps individuals overcome mental health issues. As the book The Republic said it would, the journeys called education and learning are helping to develop my character and way of thinking. While going through the usual process of growing up, I have discovered that self-discipline allows me to learn exponentially, and learning is awesome, in whatever setting, such as listening to professors give lectures to doing independent studies to reading the classics. There is so much for me to learn, and I long to better understand the ideas of such great educators as Sigmund Freud and Maimonides. Gone are the days when I, donning the hat of youthful immaturity, allowed test anxiety to get in the way of my education: I have jumped over that hurdle.

 

These education and learning journeys have led me to want to graduate from your college, an excellent school with highly intelligent professors, with world class facilities, and where, as discussed on pages 261-284 of Stephen Covey's bestselling book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, this confluence of intelligent faculty, staff, and students creates synergy, making for powerful learning experiences. I like powerful learning experiences. From rolling up my sleeves and hosting fêtes for the college community, with plenty of brie, crackers, desserts, and music in my capacity as President of the French-Speaking Club to helping with UNICEF's iodine deficiency relief project, as I have done in the past in the other schools I have attended, I can benefit, as well as be benefited by, the extracurricular activities that your school has to offer. As is the case with a confluence of intelligent individuals, I have found that a combination of educational and extracurricular experiences creates enriching synergy. And I sent in a black folder that has a copy of a newspaper article about this volunteer work written by Portland Community College’s The Bridge newspaper writer Trish Couture. Also included in this black folder is a copy of another newspaper article, this newspaper article was written by me, wrote when I was Treasurer of Alpha Eta Iota, which is part of Phi Theta Kappa, encouraging individuals to join the academic honorary society Alpha Eta Iota. And also in this black folder are copies of my transcripts and awards.

 

Willamette University, the first university in the West, is a great school, with such notable graduates as United States Senator Mark Hatfield; and ever since the awards were given out in 1990, its professors, including three of the ones who taught me, frequently win the prestigious Oregon Professor of the Year award which is given by the Carnegie Foundation. Your school is an excellent institution of higher learning that provides a great education, and I would like to graduate from it, help create enriching synergy, and from there continue my education and learning journeys. 

----

This organization involves more than rituals. And this organization involves more than going through the motions. The Free Masons, My Brothers, make the world a better place for current and future generations, including for my future wife and my children. Free Masons roll up their sleeves and donate time and energy to charities. Additionally, this Fraternity contributes over 400 million dollars each year to charities, such as to the Shriners' Hospitals, which help burn victims, and to local charity organizations. The Free Masons, and there have been millions of Free Masons -- former United States Presidents George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Gerald Ford were Free Masons, and baseball legend Cy Young was a Brother Free Mason, and musical composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a Free Mason, as was the movie star John Wayne -- and We Masons are Members of the Masonic Fraternity that has been around for over 280 years, and many states and nations have Masonic Grand Lodges that are in charge of the individual Masonic lodges. I am glad to be a member of a Fraternity that has, and lives by, the motto: "Brotherly Love. Relief. Truth.”

 

Words from a 19th Century Transcendentalist that Echo in My Soul

 

Its 20 words belie its importance for it has made an enormous impression on me, influencing my thoughts, words, and actions. Poet Henry David Thoreau put it excellently when he stated: "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor," which has led me to formulate a goal: to fully live a life that I view as worth living, and in order to do this, I must fulfill certain criteria.

 

Constant self-improvement is a criterion. Going to college, in addition to being actively involved with clubs and organizations and working, gives me the opportunity to periodically exchange ideas with others, and this is important, as it is a means to improve my thinking. For example, several years ago, I read something regarding abortion. It made sense. After further contemplation, I changed my opinion about that subject.

 

While it is vital to have an open mind, it is of course not the only means for self-improvement. Luckily, I came to the realization that the body and mind are in an inextricable relationship. Being healthy and mentally acute help me to fulfill another important criterion necessary to fully live a life worth living: contributing to the advancement of God's children. It is my hope that someday soon our world will be a place where rationalism is ubiquitous, and where the world is more civilized, decent, honorable, and good.

 

Do I presently fulfill all the criteria necessary to fully live a life that I view as worth living? Yes, as I am more altruistic and devoted to self-improvement than I was before, and I am -- slowly, incrementally -- coming closer to fulfilling my goal. 

 

A Joyous Reunion 

 

For much of my life, it had aged well. Many might have assumed from its bright blue hue, golden lettering, and wrinkle-free pages that it was 4 or 5 years old, when it was really 25. My Bible’s stay on my bookcase for most of its life was the secret to its youthful appearance.

 

When I was a child, I read my Bible weekly. As I grew older, I only read it a couple of times a year, then not at all, and my Bible found its way on my bookcase, between Treasure Island and The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. On a winter day in 2001, I was sitting at my desk wanting something to read, and I looked at my bookcase and golden letters on a book’s spine brought back old memories. I reached over, picked up my Bible, brushed off a thin layer of dust from its smooth surface, and opened randomly, reading for the first time in a long time stories like the parting of the Red Sea, Moses’s receiving of the Ten Commandments, Jesus's Walking on Water, and Elijah’s going to Heaven on a Chariot of Fire.

 

In addition to containing stories, I have found that the Bible also contains wisdom applicable throughout the ages. For example, I have learned that even in the most difficult of times, God is still there; the difficult times are only temporary, and all will be well. Whether at my desk, in the car, or at a religious service, where I go my Bible goes. It is starting to look its age. And that is good.

 

 

One of My Essays:

 

"Duck!" The Penguin in the movie Batman Returns narrowly missed getting hit by one. It comes in the colors red, orange, yellow, and green. A famous movie had its name in the title. 100 grams of it consists of about 95 grams of water. It's about the size of a heart, and if you squeeze one juice will gush out. There are two main ways to pronounce it in English. You can make it into sauce. The vegetable I'm talking about is a tomato.

 

What is a tomato good for? A lot of things. You can make tomatoes into sauces for spaghetti and pizza. You can dice tomatoes and put them on your salad. And you can even make fried green tomatoes, which is the title of a movie.

Tomatoes have great nutritional content. From the website (external link removed) a person learns that tomatoes offer a lot of vitamins, for example Vitamin E, Thiamin, Niacin, Vitamin C, Magnesium, Vitamin A, and Vitamin B6. Additionally, tomatoes are also loaded with lycopene, a very powerful antioxidant.

The history of the tomato is interesting. There are two main theories on how tomatoes, which were native to Central and South America, came to Europe. Some people believe that Spanish Conquistador Cortez brought the tomato to Europe after conquering, in 1521, what is now Mexico City. Other people believe that Christopher Columbus, in 1493, one year after embarking on his famous journey across the Atlantic Ocean, brought the tomato to Europe.

From (external link removed) a person learns that about 125 million tons of tomatoes were produced in the year 2008. China makes about a quarter of the output, and the state of California accounts for about 35% of world production of tomatoes.

In cooler areas of the world, tomatoes are grown in greenhouses. Tomatoes reproduce by the pollination of its seeds, for example, by the aid of bees and the wind. The preparation of tomatoes is interesting. I learned that tomatoes are often picked when they are green and are then stored with the organic compound ethylene, which helps with the ripening process. I learned from (external link removed) that "Tomatoes ripened in this way tend to keep longer but have poorer flavor and a mealier, starchier texture than tomatoes ripened on the plant. They may be recognized by their color, which is more pink or orange than the other ripe tomatoes' deep red, depending on variety." The alternative to buying these types of tomatoes are either garden produced tomatoes, or tomatoes on the vine, which tend to have more flavor. When you buy a tomato you can either place it in room temperature or place it in the refrigerator, the former keeps the flavor better.

The tomato provides a lot of good nutritional content. Furthermore, whether diced or chopped up, served as a sauce, or even thrown at a giant penguin, the tomato has a variety of uses.

 

 

Ratified on December 15, 1791, the United States Constitution's First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" ((external link removed)). It is my theory that the United States Supreme Court's decisions, rather than just being printed words on paper, really do affect and shape society.

It has been about a year since there was machine gun fire everywhere. Trenches were covered with barb wire. Shrapnel darkened the skies. Airplanes, known then as Aero-planes, dropped bombs upon cities. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers from the armies of the United States, the British Empire, France, Russia, Germany, and the Austria-Hungarian Empire are dead. The year is 1919, and World War I ended a few months ago. On March 3, 1919, the United States Supreme Court decided in a conservative ruling, reflecting society's conservative world view, in Schenck versus the United States, that the freedom of expression does not extend to acts that present a clear and present danger to the United States, such as trying to disrupt military recruitment: "Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent" ((external link removed)). This affected society by stifling more radical ways to protest the United States Government's policies, which in turn might have led to more conservative actions on the part of politicians . Six years after Schenck versus the United States, on June 8, 1925, in Gitlow versus the United States, the United States Supreme Court, adopting a conservative view, decided that the freedom of speech again has limitations, and that "freedom of speech and of the press, as secured by the Constitution, is not an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose or an immunity for every possible use of language" (<(external link removed)>). Again this United States Supreme Court ruling had real-world implications for society, as people were again reminded -- and in some cases sent to jail -- that individuals cannot say or write everything they might want to.

On May 18, 1931, in Stromberg versus California, the United States Supreme Court ruling upheld that states may pass laws that protect the state from the overthrow of the government, which thus helped safeguard the normal way of things: red Communist flags did not therefore fly over the state capitol buildings after coups, which had the possibility of occurring if the United States Supreme Court had decided otherwise. At the same time, the United States Supreme Court upheld that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that citizens should not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without proper due process of the law, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" ((external link removed)), meant that it was unconstitutional for a state to outlaw the displaying of a red flag, which during that time period could mean solidarity with Communism. Similarly, in DeJonge versus Oregon, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "the legislature may protect against abuses of the rights of free speech and assembly by dealing with the abuses; the rights themselves must not be curtailed." Far from being just words on a page, the United States Supreme Court again affected and shaped society by outlining some of the many protected freedoms of speech.

For eighty-six years the law of Connecticut, reflecting society's conservative world view, stated that it was illegal to provide contraception to adults, and in 1965, in Griswold versus Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 liberal decision reflecting society's changing world view, decided that it was unconstitutional to outlaw contraception, as people have a right to "marital privacy." The United States Supreme Court ruled that the "spirit" of the First, Third, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments creates a right to privacy. The decision that people have a right to privacy under the United States Constitution helped decide Roe versus Wade, decided in 1973, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that a women's right to privacy includes having an abortion (PBS). What helped make this possible? Society in the United States of America had changed dramatically in the 1970s, and had become much more liberal than it had in the past, with Flower Power, hippies, to mention just two of the many changes, and as society changes, so do the world views of the nine justices who make up the United States Supreme Court. In addition to this ruling giving people more freedom to choose their birth control, also affected the population growth of the United States of America, which itself has economic, political, and social implications.

This change to a more liberal world view, and therefore more liberal rulings, is shown in the case Cohen versus California, decided on June 7, 1971. The appellant wore a jacket stating an expletive about the military draft, and was initially found guilty of violating a California law. The United States Supreme Court decided that the First and Fourteenth Amendments allow for four letter expletives to be displayed, which again means that people have greater freedoms. The United States Supreme Court's liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution was also demonstrated in Rosebloom versus Metromedia in which it decided that "the First Amendment gives the news media a privilege to report and comment upon the official actions of public servants in full detail, without sparing from public view the reputation or privacy of an individual involved in or affected by any official action" ((external link removed)). This ruling has enormous implications for society, as the news media can now report, in great detail, on the activities of public officials, meaning a spot light can be shined on these public officials, which causes more accountability and greater public knowledge of what our public servants are up to.

Not only was the United States Supreme Court having liberal interpretations of the United States Constitution, but the cases themselves reflected society's more liberal world view. For example, Hustler magazine published a cartoon of now deceased pastor Falwell having a drunk intimate affair with his mother in an outhouse. Could you imagine something like this being published in the 1800s, let alone the United States Supreme Court ruling then that such expression was protected under the United States Constitution? It would be nearly unthinkable for either to occur in the 1800s. But both the cartoon and the United States Supreme Court ruling that such a cartoon was protected under the United States Constitution occurred on February 24, 1988, in Hustler Magazine, Inc. versus Falwell. This ruling gave the approval for more liberal expressions, which in turn helped change society. Furthermore, on June 26, 1997, in Reno versus the American Civil Liberties Union, the United States Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to make laws regarding the transmission of data on the Internet that violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the Freedom of Speech, which therefore helped turn the faucet for more freedom of speech on the Internet, and more choices for what people in society have the option of viewing.

In sum, then, the United States Supreme Court, as time progressed and as society became more liberal, issued more liberal world views. A question becomes why? The Supreme Court justices are of course members of society too, and they like many people are influenced by changing standards. For example, for many years there used to television and movie censors: swear words were not to be used, and even a husband and his wife were never to be shown sleeping in the same bed; this changed. As society became more liberal, so too did the United States Supreme Court's rulings. And this more liberal interpretation of the United States Constitution has enormous implications for society, ranging from more freedom of expression to more options about birth control to greater accountability from public officials.

　

PBS. Landmark Cases. <(external link removed)>.

Supreme Court collection. <(external link removed)>.

An Exploration of an Invaluable, Symbiotic Discovery

 

I greatly enjoy being a part of multicultural organizations. My fellow members and I learn a lot. We give back to the world. And we have fun, too.

It is amazing how much we learn by being a part of multicultural organizations. We hear opinions about various sections of the Bible, such as whether or not in The Book of Job a dinosaur is alluded to, find out about the intricacies of British and French politics, and from Seranthi, a fellow member of The Open Mind, Open Heart Club Online, gain knowledge about Sri Lanka's culture, for instance, that the lighting of a traditional lamp, the Kuthu Villakkuin, starts off the New Year's celebrations there. A sizable percentage of this learning takes place during formal meetings, although an even larger amount takes place during members’ ongoing conversations with each other.

My fellow members and I are also committed to public service. We sponsor cultural awareness events and roll up our sleeves to fund-raise for iodine deficiency relief programs. We may not be able to fix all of the world's problems, but we are making a positive difference.

We make a point to have tons of fun, whether going to the East Asian Cultural Festival and listening to the pleasant, sonorous sounds of Japanese Taika drums while reading pamphlets about the Chinese Dragon Boat and Lantern Festivals or whether meeting at the annual International Cuisine Fair and sharing delicious spaghetti and a tasty enchilada, taking in freshly made popcorn's ubiquitous buttery aroma, consuming (very salty) calamari, and acquiring a newfound appreciation for the miracle of H2O or whether hosting winter and spring fêtes for the college community, where we have a great time dancing, singing, playing Trivial Pursuit, drinking Juicy Juice, and eating ice-cream, apple and pecan pie, brie, crackers, and vegetable sticks. Everyone is cordially invited to attend these activities. I disseminate information about them throughout campus, well in advance, using a combination of printed, verbal, and electronic mediums.

My active involvement with multicultural organizations is a good choice. My fellow members and I are growing intellectually, helping others, and having fun. In the years ahead, I look forward to being a continued part of these wonderful organizations.

----

Written by Brandon Katrena

 

        Thanks to such notable philosophers as Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Ayn Rand, modern-day Westerners see Feudalism and Manorialism as being nefarious. Yet if one were to peruse the annals of history, one would find that these social, political, and economic systems of antiquity were born out of necessity. One would also discover that along with the negative aspects attached to these two systems, there were a plethora of positive ones as well, which helped meet the needs of medieval Europe.

        Manorialism developed in multifaceted and complex ways. The seeds of Manoralism were planted in the latter half of the third century AD when Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered his subjects to follow the occupations of their fathers. A few hundred years passed by, in which time the Roman Empire fell, Germanic Tribes took over, and eventually the Carolingian Empire came in to existence.

        History has a proclivity to repeat itself. Like the Roman Empire before it, the Carolingian Empire fell apart. With its fall, the seeds planted by Diocletian came into full bloom. There are three reasons for these phenomena.

        Firstly, from the first half to the end of the ninth century AD, Frankish Nobles encouraged members of the royal family to battle one another. This infighting was enervating, and nobles were thus able to accumulate lands from the weakened royals. Finally, worn out by internecine warfare, in 843 AD Louis the Pious’s sons divided the Carolingian Empire among themselves. This action only exacerbated the precarious condition of imperial authority, as greedy nobles were able to seize even more land and power from a now fractured Empire.

        Secondly, like internal divisions, periodic external attacks by Vikings, Magyars, and Muslims took their toll on the Carolingian Empire. Not only did these invasions hasten The Empire’s Collapse, but they also “created [. . .] individual insecurity” (MHB 262). Individuals need protection, so what did they do? Answer: they got protection from local lords. In return for this protection, lords obtained allegiance from the peasantry, and at the same time increased their own power and prestige.

        Thirdly, and lastly, with an attack upon society by internal and external forces, things broke down. Economic life became almost totally agricultural; non-commercial bargaining supplanted the usage of money. Urban centers were an endangered species; rural life became dominant.

        In sum, then, royal infighting, along with external attacks, were taken advantage of by opportunistic local magnates. As a decentralization of government came into being, an increase in power at a localized level came about. Gradually, agricultural activities began to reign supreme and Manorialism took shape.

        As McKay, Hill, and Buckler state, “Feudalism concerned the rights, powers, and lifestyle of the military elite, manorialism involved the services and obligations of the peasant[s] [ . . . ]” (261). While these two systems were in many ways dissimilar, in other ways they were quite analogous to each other. Land was the form of wealth of the military elite. One did not find nobles beating their swords into plowshares and tilling the soil under the perpetual glare of the scorching sun; nor did one find peasants beating their hoes and spades into weapons of war. Rather, the peasantry worked the land, and in return the nobility provided protection. Therefore, Feudalism and Manoralism were in a symbiotic, inextricable relationship: without serfs to work the land, the military elite could not exist; without the military elite, serfs would have fallen prey to bloodthirsty invaders.

        How did Manorialism work in practical terms? Serfs formed the backbone of a Manorial Society. To become a serf, unless born into it, a person would come to a lord and request to become his serf. If the lord acquiesced, that person became the lord’s subject. From then on, He or She gave their Person and their lands to the lord; they were thus bound to the land and were subject to the lord’s rules.

        Unlike modern-day Western Civilization where industry is King, Manorialism was an economic system where agriculture was hegemonic. Accordingly, a serf’s main job was to farm the land and give a portion of the harvest to the lord. In return, he or she received the lord’s protection.

        Furthermore, “Rugged Individualism” was a phrase that was unheard of in the early Middle Ages. It follows then that on the manor the serf’s emulated society’s ethos and were very collectivist. For example, in farming they pooled their labor, thereby working as a team and pursuing a common goal. (Perhaps modern-day society could benefit by taking heed to some of the practices of the past.)

        Lest one think otherwise, lords and peasants were not in a collective, egalitarian relationship. On the contrary, while peasants dirtied their hands tilling the earth, the lords’ defense of the manor gave their hands an incarnadine hue. Even though the two group’s obligations were multifarious, for Manorialism to work both lord and peasant were counted upon to diligently uphold their part of the bargain.

        Upon close examination of the duties of the lord and serf, it is apparent that a peasant’s most time-consuming duty was to work the land. Primitive agricultural tools, such as the harrow, meant farming was exhausting. In addition, typically they worked from dawn to dusk, and days off were rare indeed.

        Besides having to work their own land, the peasants also had the duty of cultivating the lords’ private plots of land; usually, all of this harvested food became the property of the lord. This chore, on average, consumed three or more days per week of the peasants’ time. In addition to this, a peasant had to do other manual labor types of jobs around the manor (e.g., animal husbandry, craft making, et cetera).

        Lastly, peasants were expected to be deferential to their lord. This entailed not leaving the manor without his authorization. Moreover, they had to obey the lord and take heed to his every command. And they were restricted in many other ways. For example, in addition to having to give a percentage of the annual harvest to the lord, in many cases they had to pay him before they married someone, and they also had to pay a fine before inheriting property.

        While the peasants worked their fingers to the bone, a lord worked at a more comfortable pace. His primary duty was to make sure that his estate ran smoothly. He accomplished this, in part, by hiring overseers who were competent. A lord also helped ensure the smooth running of his estate by overseeing legal proceedings and disciplining those serfs who got out of line. With the latter, English lords were aided by their serfs who, upon seeing criminal mischief taking place, “[ . . . ] were expected to chase the perpetrator themselves and yell to others to join in.” (WRW 140).

        Equally important, a lord provided military protection for those living on his manor. Besides being well-armed themselves, many could rely on knights to help with this duty. It was important that lords guard their territory well, as an undefended manor was a tempting target for many an avaricious foreign invader, who not only looted but who also, “most terribly [ . . . ] oppress[ed] the Christians” (Rogers 295).

        Additionally, lords were supposed to look out for the general welfare of the peasantry. For example, they were to provide for the peasants in lean times (class notes). Whether or not they always did this is another matter all together.

        From ushering in relative stability to protecting the populace from invaders’ battle-axes, Manorialism and Feudalism met the needs of Medieval Europe in many fundamental ways. Yet, in other ways these systems let society down. While hedonistic lords went to bed with full bellies, throngs of peasants suffered from want.

        The order that Manorialism ushered in greatly benefited Medieval Europe. Except when an “act of God” struck, the Manorial System usually ensured that a steady supply of foodstuffs would be produced. Also, those who lived on the manor knew what their daily routine was and were kept busy. (As the old adage says, “Idle hands make for idle minds.”) Consequently, this absence of chaos meant Europe was poised to advance herself.

        Furthermore, Manorialism’s inextricable link to Feudalism brought about a measure of security. The lords helped protect the peasantry from being molested and slaughtered by the so-called “Barbarians.” And at the same time, lords hindered the destruction of property, which in turn was good for the agricultural-intensive economy.

        While in many ways Manorialism benefited the peoples of Europe, the movie called “The Name of the Rose” testified to the base side of this system. For example, the scene where peasants frantically scavenged through the monastery’s trash for food illustrated that not all lords fulfilled their obligations to the peasantry. One can also surmise from that scene that the Manorial System did not always yield sufficient quantities of food.

        Moreover, serfdom was just one step up from slavery. While they could not sell “their” serfs (yes, they were regarded as property-like), from floggings to mutilations to executions, lords could be as autocratic as they chose to be. In this way, this system retarded the development of a society based upon egalitarian principles.

        In sum, both Manorialism and Feudalism played an indispensable role in the society of yesteryear. Manorialism was an economic system that was well-suited for the agricultural-based economy of Medieval Europe. Likewise, Fedualism helped bring about a sense of order and security where there had been none before. Together, both systems, while not without flaw by any means, left a positive, long-lasting mark on Western Civilization.

 

Works Cited:

 

McKay, Hill, and Buckler. A History of Western Society. New

        York, NY: Hougton Mifflin Company, 1999.       

Rogers. Aspects of Western Civilization. Upper Saddle River,

        New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.

Smaldone. “Class Notes.”

The Name of the Rose. Dir. Jean-Jacques Annaud. Perf. Sean    

Connery, F. Murray Abraham, Christian Slater. Embassy Home Entertainment, 1987.

Wiesner, Ruff, and Wheeler. Discovering the Western Past. New

 

One of My Papers/Plays

Written by Brandon Katrena

 

 

        The year is 52 BC, and Rome is in Chaos. There are scenes of lootings and much screaming. Pompey, Caesar’s new rival, obtains the consulship. In the following years, Roman senators attempt to strip Caesar of his soldiers (Heichelheim, Ward, and Yeo, 199-200). This is too much for Caesar to handle, and he crosses the Rubicon. Caesar’s forces conquer Rome and Spain. Battle scenes are shown. By 47 BC, Caesar, on battlefields throughout Europe and Africa, defeats those who openly oppose him. In 46 BC, he celebrates four lavish triumphs, and a year later puts down a rebellion in Spain (Heichelheim, Ward, and Yeo, 204). The play visually shows triumphs and the Spanish rebels being pacified.

        The play’s announcer states: “As is the case on the battlefield, when it comes to reforms, Caesar is the crème de la crème. He increases the size of The Senate, and he drafts lex Julia Municipalis, which ‘provide[s] for local self-government.’ These two important moves create good will between Rome and Italy (Heichelheim, Ward, and Yeo, 205). In order to help alleviate overcrowding and unemployment, Caesar becomes passionate about colonization projects. Moreover, Caesar regulates the calendar” (Heichelheim, Ward, and Yeo, 206).

        Caesar walks past a man who warns the dictator, “Beware the Ides of March.” Caesar, in his typical fearless fashion, walks to The Senate, undisturbed. Once seated, The Senators do what they are known to have done. Caesar, startled by Brutus’s treachery asks, “Et tu, Brute?” (Shakespeare is in the play’s credits). The play’s curtains close and re-open within two minutes.

        Yes, Caesar died a tragic death. More importantly, he lived a Very Noble and Heroic Life. It is why many of the Romans of antiquity thought him a god. The last scene of My play shows Caesar’s and Venus’s hands joined together; they recollect the events that transpired during Caesar’s 56 years on Earth, and She murmurs in His Ear, “My Child, You make Me proud.” Aeneas pats Caesar on the back, and the Trojan draws parallels between his battle against Turnus, prince of Rutuli, and Caesar’s battle against Pompey; both were formidable foes who had huge armies under their command (Livy, 36). A few seconds later, Mars, donning a toga, nods approvingly. Romulus, looking adoringly at Caesar, says, “You were a Soldier. And You helped make My Wish, expressed hundreds of years ago, come true: ‘let them know, and teach their children, that no power on earth can stand against Roman arms’” (Livy, 51). Caesar’s eyes, as they had done when he was an infant, glow bright, and he yearns for the day when the very thought of Rome strikes fear into the heart of all barbarians, and when a Roman is filled with an infinite amount of pride, reverence, duty, and honor when He or She says, “I am Roman.”

 

Works Cited:

 

Heichelheim, Ward, and Yeo. A History of the Roman People. 

3^rd edition. (Prentice Hall, 1999).

 

Livy. The Early History of Rome, trans. A. de Sélincourt 

 

Written by Brandon Katrena

It is Important that females serve in the government for four main reasons. Firstly, it encourages more females to run for government office. Secondly, when females serve in the government, it helps shatter myths about females, such as that they are overly emotional, weak, and lack fire in the belly. Thirdly, in some – but nonetheless important – ways, many females govern differently than their male counterparts, the underlying cause of which is caused by differences in socialization. Fourthly, the aforementioned three reasons cause meaningful social change to take place.

        Female governmental officials’ presence encourages more females to enter the political sphere. Most people do not like being trailblazers. When they see someone like them who has already entered politics, they have a proclivity to think that they might be able to do that too. After Madeleine Kunin became Governor of Vermont, for example, many females who had previously settled for either lives in the domestic sphere or low-level government posts began to see that they too could achieve more; consequently, there was “a very big reservoir of female applicants for positions all over state government” (Kunin 354-355). Symbolic representation produces meaningful social change because it encourages more females to aspire to greater heights in the here and now, and because it makes an indelible impression on the self-esteem of female children, who will one day grow up and be in positions to lead this nation. With regard to the former, later on in this paper it is explained how female governmental officials, especially high-level ones, cause meaningful social change. With regard to the latter, as then-Governor of Texas, Ann Richards, stated: “There will be a lot of little girls who open their history texts to see my picture [ . . . ] and they will say, ‘If she can do it, so can I’” (qtd. In Thomas 56).

        Additionally, a shattering of myths about females occurs when females serve in the government, which produces meaningful social change as it helps ensure that when female children grow up, they will be able to do anything that they want to do, including leading the nation; it also helps female adults, as it helps tear down some of the many myth-produced barriers that they must contend with on a day-to-day basis. Two prevalent myths are that females are overly emotional and weak. Female politicians like former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher help shatter these myths. She earned the sobriquet “the Iron Lady”: pleas to compassion did not deter her from slashing Britain’s welfare rolls; in 1982, she refused to surrender the Falkland Islands, opting instead to battle it out with Argentina until she achieved her objective – victory; nine years later, on the eve of the Persian Gulf War, she instructed then-U.S. President George Bush to not be “wobbly”. Another myth is that females lack the necessary fire in the belly to be politicians. Female politicians like U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein shatter this one also. For example, Feinstein was twice unsuccessful in attaining San Francisco’s mayorship before winning two, four-year terms (Clift and Brazaitis 174).

        The shattering of myths and the benefits conferred with symbolic representation are not the only positive things that occur when females serve in the government. We also need more female governmental officials because, while Reingold was right in the assessment that female and male governmental officials are mostly alike in their governance (215), they still tend to govern in some different – but nonetheless important – ways. One such way centers on political appointments. Many females who hold executive positions in the government actively seek out qualified females to appoint to government posts. Unlike many of her male predecessors, for example, then-Governor of Vermont Madeleine Kunin realized that although being confined to the domestic sphere for years on end made females’ credentials typically different from males’, it did not mean that females were unqualified for government posts. She therefore tapped into her “Old Girls” network and appointed females in much greater numbers than had been done previously (Kunin 355). Likewise, in 1993 then-Governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman appointed the “first woman attorney general and the first female African-American secretary of state” (Clift and Brazaitis 178). The question arises: why is it important that females be appointed to government posts? Answer: because it is important that females serve in the government.

        Female governmental officials also tend to be more passionate than male governmental officials about improving and strengthening social programs such as day care, education, and welfare, which, it can be argued, produces meaningful social change, as when such programs are improved and strengthened people are treated more humanely and are given the tools necessary to help live up to their full potential. Furthermore, female governmental officials have a great proclivity to ratify legislation that deals with issues that directly affect females. As this writer mentioned in a previous paper: “A researcher found that over 80% of female candidates for U.S. Congress and state legislatures ‘had positive attitudes toward the women’s movement, and that substantial majorities supported feminist positions on such issues as the ERA’ (Amy 101) (6).”

        That researcher is not alone in the assessment that a large percentage of female candidates for political office are passionate about those issues that disproportionally affect women: the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University also concurs (Kunin 365), which is exciting because:

“as more and more women have been elected to government office over the years, their positive attitudes toward the women’s movement and support for feminist positions have translated into many victories for women. For example, U.S. Congresswomen played an integral role in ratifying The Family and Medical Leave Act, and they also helped change the practice of naming all hurricanes after women, which is good as hurricanes are destructive” (Clift and Brazaitis 107) (Katrena 6).

 

And there are many examples of victories on the state level as well. For instance, in 1990 in Vermont, among the most passionate about establishing family courts were female governmental officials. Family courts are good for women as they can “equalize the balance of power between men and women within the judicial system by recognizing the vulnerability of women and children when they [are] at the most fragile point in their lives” (Kunin 368).

        This is not to say that male governmental officials’ legislation is always, or even often, bad. Rather, as Oregon Congressperson Jackie Winters said during the “Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Women and Work” panel discussion, and former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland said in the videocassette “Women World Leaders,” men and women tend to have different perspectives. The inclusion of both perspectives in legislation is beneficial, as both men and women have good points.

        Some assume that because female governmental officials tend to have different perspectives than their male colleagues it is indicative of inherent differences in the mindsets of men and women. This too is a myth; it is shattered by an elementary understanding of sociology. Men and women tend to have some differences when it comes to governing because they are usually raised differently, and they are treated differently throughout their live. Boys are usually encouraged to compete against each other and be aggressive; girls are usually encouraged to cooperate and play nice. Until very recently, men were usually the sole income producers; women were the ones who took care of the home. (In contemporary times, while husbands are taking a larger degree of responsibility for the care of the children and the home than they did before, the average husband still does not spend as much time on these things as his wife does.)

        Some of the media often helps perpetuate this gender stratification by, for example, having movies and advertising depict men as being aggressive and women as being subordinate. Not surprisingly, then, men’s and women’s thinking tends to differ in some ways, and their governing-styles reflect this, with male governmental officials often having a tendency to care more about competitive things, such as war, and female governmental officials often having a tendency to care more about nurturing/family things like child care and education. Governor Madeleine Kunin, for example, was passionate about child care because – like most women – her personal experience with the issue as a mother made her much more insightful and interested in it (Kunin 365). As Phillips stated:

“We do not have to resort to either mysticism or socio-biology to explain social differences between women and men, and it would be most peculiar if the different responsibilities the sexes carry for caring for others did not translate into different approaches to politics and power (75).”

 

        When society has more female governmental officials, it will most likely never go back to the days when one could count the number of female governmental officials on one hand, as female governmental officials’ presence encourages more females to run for political office. When more females are governmental officials, myths about females shatter. Moreover, females bring to the table their unique (socially-created) perspectives, which is good, because the perspectives are good. Our society may never become perfect, but as the numbers of female governmental officials increase, it will become more just.

 

 

 

Amy, Douglas. Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for

Proportional Representation Elections in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

 

Clift, Eleanor and Brazaitis, Tom. Madam President: Shattering

the Last Glass Ceiling. New York: Scribner, 2000.

 

Katrena, Brandon. “Are Electoral Reforms Effective and

Good?” 2001.

 

Kunin, Madeleine. Living a Political Life. New York: Vintage

Books, 1994.

 

Phillips, Beth. Representing Women: Sex Gender and

Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

 

Thomas, Sue. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1994.

 

Winters, Jackie. “Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Women and

Work.” Panel Discussion. Willamette University. Salem, Oregon: 6 November 2001.

 

Women World Leaders. Videocassette. New Dimension Media,

 

 

Written by Brandon Katrena

 

        Although war and peace are antithetical by definition, during the reigns of Romulus and Numa those two opposites, according to Livy, brought to Rome and to Romans many benefits and dangers. Specifically, Romulus’s specialty – war – gave the city women, other tangibles, and valuable intangibles, while Numa’s specialty – peace – brought about development and religiosity, and, because of the latter, more respect from other states. Additionally, while Livy wrote about events that occurred from 753 to 674 BC, in many ways his discussion about a society at peace more than 600 years from the time he was living was very relevant to the Rome he and his countrymen inhabited.

        According to Livy, the Romans of antiquity loved war. This amorous fixation with it was why they “declare[d] that Mars himself was their first parent” (Livy, 33), and why they so highly valued bravery, strength, and constance. Romulus’s reign did his first parent proud: not only did he wage war against Rome’s adversaries (an egregious exception was the non-retribution for Tatius’s murder), when it came to being a warrior and military strategist, he was la crème de la crème. Perhaps after a battle like the one against the men of Caenina, Mars was proud of His Children’s prowess.

        War is, for good reason, associated with devastation to both sides of a conflict. The severely weakened states of the Trojans, Latins, and Rutuli after their conflict (Livy, 36), the Allies and Central Powers after World War I, and the European Countries after World War II being three examples out of a myriad. However, when Romulus was on the throne, war conferred a number of benefits to Rome.

        War gave Rome women, whose ability to procreate was normally needed for the maintenance and/or increase of the population. Exceptions included mergers and non-violent acquisitions, such as when the Sabine women convinced their husbands to lay down their weapons and join with the Romans, which caused an approximate doubling in the population of Rome.

        “Woe to the vanquished!” the adage goes. From spoils (Livy, 45) to territory (Livy, 46 and 50), war gave the Roman community other tangible benefits. These allowed Mars’s Children to survive and expand.

        War gave valuable intangibles. Experience from former conflicts, for example, meant that, “the sheer power of [Romulus’s] veteran troops sufficed for victory” over Veii (Livy, 50). With the fall of Veii came many of the aforementioned benefits. Rome obtained another intangible – protection – both from the negation of retribution from (now conquered) foreign people, and from those like the men of Fidenae, for whom Rome’s exponential expansion caused worry. Moreover, victory on the battlefield was a means to accomplishing the paramount goal of pleasing the gods. For instance, after the battle against the revenge-seeking men of Caenina, Romulus gave the enemy commander’s armor to Jupiter Feretrius (Livy, 45). An argument can be made that whether or not the gods really existed was not too important; it only mattered that the Romans believed the gods were pleased, as a worried populace caused a fall in morale, and that spelled trouble.

        War was not all good to the Romans, as it came with the specter of danger. Until Rome first became an expansive Empire and could afford to lose a skirmish here, say in Greece, and there, say in Northern Africa, losing a single battle carried with it the possibility of the sack of the city and its citizens being led away in shackles. What is more, with a plethora of the men off fighting, not only was Rome vulnerable, but lots of the farming did not get done. Yes, the spoils of war could help; however, victory was never assured.

        Much to their first parent’s chagrin, during the reign of Numa, the Romans turned away from their bellicose ways and embraced peace. Like war, this path too conferred several benefits to Rome. It also had its downside.

        Peace allowed Rome to develop. Numa created a calendar. He created holidays, which boosted morale. Numa encouraged the maturing of religion through (a) the appointment of priests and virgin priestesses, (b) the consecration of an altar to Jupiter Elicius, and (c) the empowerment of the Pontifex, Senator Numa Marcius, with control over many of religion’s facets (Livy, 55).

        This religiosity gave Rome newfound respect from other states. During the reign of Romulus they thought the Children of Mars would forever don the shawl of belligerence and with it beat them senseless. They treated Romans accordingly. During Numa’s reign the surrounding states “came to revere [Rome] so profoundly as a community dedicated wholly to worship that the mere thought of offering her violence seemed to them like sacrilege” (Livy, 56).

        As is the case with war, peace was not 100% good. Livy stated that it could cause slothfulness, leaving a city like Rome vulnerable to attack (Livy, 54). In addition, while peace may have sometimes brought reverence, it could just as well have caused other states to not fear Rome and, as Machiavelli’s The Prince stated, there were benefits to being feared; namely, it helped ward off attack.

        Livy’s treatment of peace applied to his contemporary Romans. He wrote in the preface that his Rome’s “might [ . . . ] [was] beginning to work its own ruin.” And it was. During the time period encompassing 25 to 5 BC, large Roman armies were fighting the so-called “Barbarians” on the outskirts of The Empire. The Roman Generals, gorged with the power war accorded to them, were trying to seize control, causing chaos in the meantime (Heichelheim, Ward, and Yeo, 247). As Livy pointed out in his writing, during Numa’s reign, peace provided internal developments and -- much more importantly for his countrymen -- also lead through religiosity to Rome’s enemies not waging war. Furthermore, religion -- except in those religions where Dionysus, Liber, and their ilk were held in very high esteem -- could lessen the sensual excesses that plagued Livy’s, not Numa’s, Rome (Livy, 34 and 36).

        War and peace benefited the Rome of antiquity. They also entailed risk. I believe that the moral behind Livy’s story was that either of these polar opposites, depending on the context, could be warmly embraced and would probably produce good results, but a Person should not fall so much in love with either War or Peace that it blinded Him or Her to the danger lurking in the shadows of their friend’s eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

Heichelheim, Ward, and Yeo. A History of the Roman People. 

3^rd edition. (Prentice Hall, 1999).

 

Livy. The Early History of Rome, trans. A. de Sélincourt