Colonial America was a community of conflict rather than consensus. This is because the colonies were divided by social classes that faced many inequalities. Gary Nash also discovered the correlation between the decrease in patronage that “had once bound communities together” and the rise of “of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities…” The social classes that divided the communities weakened the patronage that had once strengthened and held the colonies together. There was also conflict over equality. The majority of the North believed in more complete equality whereas the South was racist towards blacks. The South, in order to hush the equality conflict, granted all free, white men complete equality. When it came to government, the South was strongly democratic. The North, however, lacked democratic features in their governments. Therefore, Colonial America was a community of political conflict. A community cannot possibly come to a consensus when they disagree with things such as government, equality, and social classes.
I totally agree with you that it was more a community of conflict rather than consensus. The communities disagree on so many things so they cant be a consensus.
I also agree that is was a community of conflict rather than of consensus. I also said that they disagreed within their social classes and that the white men ensure racial solidarity. And sometimes space between the rich and poor
I agree that it was a community of conflict rather than consensus for the reasons you stated. I also think that the colonists were more centered around their own goals and ambitions than what was best for the communities.
I believe that colonial america was a community of conflict rather than consensus. In this article, it stated that the social classes that divided the communities weakened the patronage that use to strengthen the other colonies together. “The wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations toward the poor for more selfish captialistic social relations that favored their class peers.” This statement is basically stating that the wealthy didn’t care what happened as long as they got what they wanted. The south was racist and the North believed that everyone should be treated equally. However, the North didn’t provide much democratic features and the south made sure that all the white men got equal rights. This proves that a community can’t be a consensus because they disagree on so many different things.
I also believe that the colonial america was a community of conflict rather than consensus because as you said the social classes were divided and that is what I said. The rich and the poor both wanted racial solidarity but the rich also wanted space between them and the poor men.
I too agree that Colonial America was a community of conflict. I agree a major reason for this was because of the division of classes and rich taking advantage.
I agree with you that the social classes greatly weakened the communities. I also agree that a big conflict was the difference in views of equality between the North and the South.
I agree that the colonists were too separated in their beliefs and ideas to unify and create a community of consensus. Even just between the North and the South, there were several huge differences that stopped them from becoming one nation.
I think that it was communities of conflict because the laboring class in Virginia and Maryland experience consolidation of religious and social authority, whereas the land owning men further in the south had slaves and were under the sway of few powerful planters. Though the south is thought to have no equality it did produce most of the founding fathers including Washington, Jefferson and Madison so even though they were from the more unqualified south they did come to the aid of the country. Many different places like the slave holding in Virginia which is where these men came from. Though place like Brazil and Mexico had sharper class divisions the white men of the British colonies wanted to secure racial solidarity between the two groups which brought conflict within the different communities of men. Even with the conflict in the colonies the men, and women in Britain still thought that it was beater in America so many of them immigrated over to the New Word which brought conflict between the colonists and the crown. Though the New World was thought to be a free and great place there was still a lot of conflict between the poor and rich and the colonists and the people of Britain.
You do have a point by saying they had social classes. Even though they did seprerate men and women, in the 1960 the entire united states separated people by color so would that make the unites states a conflict in the community world?
I agree with you that the social structure of the community was in part to blame for the conflict that occurred. Some colonists felt superior to others which caused tensions to rise in government and other areas in the colonies.
I understand where you are coming from but since civilizations have begun, and to the present, there has always been a conflict between rich and poor. There also has and will be a conflict between religions as well.
I agree with the conflict differences you had between the north and south. I related when you stated how the south is known to have no equality yet they have produced some of the most prestigious founding fathers.
During the 1700 life was little rough with a staggering life expectancy in the 50’s. The communities were small but consensual. The cities had a structured government all though they would not be socially accepted in today’s society they had a type of congress and one leader that made all of the decisions. Each community including MBC (Massachusetts bay colony) were self-sustained and could live without help for great Britain. One cannot say that there was no conflict in the colonies but there was not as much as they are made out to be. The colonies after the 1750’s had to combine as one nation and fight the Britain for their independence. In order for them to do that they had to of had come to an agreement and stop fighting each other and come as one and beat the Britain. In conclusion the colonies were consensual and not problematic.
I agree with your statement about the colonies coming together to be one nation to fight against Britain. There will never be a perfect nation, unless it was a utopia, which is impossible. However, we should always continue to make our country better.
I believe that as time progressed Colonial America became a community of conflict. When the colonies were first settled they were centered on religion, family togetherness, and organized society and government. This became the way of life because this was the only way that early colonists could survive as a community. Once the colonies had been settled for a while, however, people became more interested in their personal agendas so to speak and the founding principles of Colonial America went by the wayside. As the article states, “… colonists gradually lost the religious discipline and social structure of the founding generations as they poured out onto the frontier or sailed the seas in search of fortune and adventure.” Colonists became more and more focused on their individual goals and ambitions, forgetting about the unity that built the colonies. Even though America still appealed to Europeans for land opportunities the reality was not what they expected once they arrived.
I do agree with you that the colonial colonies were more of a conflict rather than a consensus for the simple fact that they were losing their basics and losing their foundation that they once built when they first got there. Once they settled for a while (like you said), they were starting to lose the foundation they built and the goals and ambitions they all were trying to achieve when they first started to colonize the area. I do believe that the colonists were disagreeing with each other on many things and were trying to run everything on their own.
I agree with you that colonial colonies were a conflict. It is true that many people started becoming less interested in other peoples life and cared more about theirs.
I agree that the new world was centered on religion at first. In fact, they were so focused on this, that when they began to doubt their religion, many other differences became more apparent. People began to be more selfish and forgot about the others around them. This caused a community of conflict.
The article had valid points for both sides. Colonial America was both a community of conflict and consensus. However, during this time period, colonial America was the best place to live than anywhere else. Even though it wasn’t a perfect place, there was still some religious tolerance and economic and social freedoms. Jack Greene argued that with the dramatic decrease in difference between England and the New World “has obscured the fact that colonies outside of New England, like Virginia and Maryland, actually experienced a consolidation of religious and social authority throughout.” For a long time, in the south slaves were treated like indentured servants and after their time was served, they had a chance to start a life on their own. Even though it wasn’t perfect, immigrants came and still come to America in search for a new start as it is the “land of opportunity.”
I agree with the last sentence in this post. Regardless of whether it was a community of conflict or consensus people did continue to come into America for a new opportunity.
I do agree that the colonial colonies are a great place to live even now; however, I do believe that the colonies were more of a conflict than a consensus because they were still young people trying to thrive in a new/young land so they were still trying to work out the social kinks.
I agree that there was both conflict and consensus in colonial America, and I appreciate how you mentioned that immigrants traveled there for opportunity.
I think that Colonial America was a colony of conflict, rather than consensus. The text stated that there was a lot of population pressure on the land; which some historians believe lead to the societal class that was without land. The people in this class were then forced to go into the cities and look for work, or till resident plots in the countryside. In the time period there was a growing competitiveness between the individual colonies; therefore, paternalism, which once had brought the colonies together, was in decline. The rich class then selfishly ditched certain tasks for the poor class to deal with. That being said, I don’t think that America was a colony of consensus they weren't working together to move forward, they were growing apart and doing what was necessary for that individual community. Lastly, with independence came slavery, and all the positives and negatives it brought along with it as well.
I agree that the colonial colonies were more of a conflict rather than a consensus for the same reasons you believed, especially the point that stated that the colonies were against each other and competing against each other rather than working together to try and move forward.
I strongly agree with the points you stated on how the north and south did not work together to move forward. I felt that they were delaying the matter of progressing with each other too.
In my opinion, I think that the Colonial America was more of a community of conflict than it was consensus. One of the first examples from the text would be "..likewise traces the rise of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities, marking the end of the patronage and paternalism that had once bound communities together" This quote is a great example on how the colonies were very individualistic and instead of striving to progress as one with developments they focused on themselves creating much conflict. The major differences between the north and south included religion, agriculture, and society/government conflict; for example, "..wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations toward the poor.." These disagreements were the base of the conflict and it's impossible to have a strong society with these problems. Again, the colonies were a community of conflict and they chose to not be smart about the issues revolving around them.
I believe that Colonial America was composed of communities of consensus. They colonies were all formed by innovative people who had similar views. The southern colonies were formed to be an economical venture by hard-working people. They had differing views than the north about slaves and indentured servants but they were united with common views. The colonies were made of hardworking people who wanted to succeed. They had to come together to survive in the rugged terrain and they had to lean on each other to make in in life.
I liked how you kept it short but if you added a quote your argument would be stronger. It made me think a little more about the other side of the argument.
After reading the selection I think that the communities of conflict. I think that they are communities of conflict because of a few quotes from the reading. First quote, "...rise of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities...". In this quote it shows that the people were becoming more self sufficient and that they were less reliant on the British. In stating this it shows that the people and their views had begun to change. The second quote, "The wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations towards the poor for more selfish capitalistic social relations that favored their class peers." This second quotes shows that the wealthier people were starting to ban together and change the way that people viewed them. The more wealthy people got the more the banned together to create a strong structure so that slaves wouldn't revolt. Both of these quotes from the reading show that there was a lot of conflict centered around the colonies and their communities.
Bru'N Tribitt 9/22/14 The early New England colonies were very different to the stories that we were told during are early education. The colonies were not unified. The communities of Colonial America consisted of conflict. Social structures changed and religious discipline of the colonialists. There was also a decline of social order in colonial cities. The wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations and used the poor to fuel selfish capitalistic relations with other class peers. Rich colonialists also supported the poor whites so they then would turn their racism towards blacks. There was also issues with racism between Europeans and Indians which created differences. The article quotes, “Increasingly, Nash contended, class antagonism split communities.” The colonies were not unified and they consisted of conflict
I agree with your idea that there was an internal struggle in the communities. The idea that the upper classes tried to turn the lower class whites against blacks and natives really shows how the rich were self centered.
I believe that Colonial America was a community of conflict instead of a consensus community. “Like Greene, many historians have focused on sectional differences between the colonies, and the peculiar nature of social equality and inequality in each.” This quote is saying that there are different things going on between the colonies and one of the differences is the social equality of the colonies and inequality. Many Americans began having an obsession with their freedom. In the text it states, "...the slaves societies of the South were hierarchical, aristocratic communities under the sway of a few powerful planters." The English stated that the South was having a more inequality community. Also, many wealthy people abandoned their traditional obligations and became more selfish to the poor. This marked the end of the patronage and paternalism.
Colonial America was made almost entirely of communities of conflict rather than communities of consensus. Although the communities were said to have been “close knit, homogeneous, and hierarchical” by early historians, there is reason to believe that they were just the opposite. Because the colonial society was just beginning to expand, colonists “lost the religious discipline and social structure of the founding generation,” as it is theorized by Richard Bushman. This demonstrates the beginning of a breakdown which includes the rise of new social inequalities. These inequalities can be traced to “the rise of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities, marking the end of patronage and paternalism that had once bound communities together,” according to Gary Nash in The Urban Crucible. This illustrates the beginning of a selfish nature that would soon be housed by the colonists, causing them to disregard the thought of working with those around them in order to create a better colonial society; as a result, conflict stemmed from this mindset.
The colonies of America were originally a close community. They all shared a religion in the communities this resulted in all of the community members agreeing on issues due to their beliefs. This however pushed some people out. These people would take the religions to an extreme and where thus ousted from the community for not going with the flow. Others left the religion and had strayed views as land became scarce and people had to move farther out of the grasps of the church. Finally immigrants that weren’t of the same religion flooded America. These resulted in a large conflict in interest. The masses couldn’t come to a consensus because they weren’t all managed by the same faith and belief. These people all having independent thinking and faiths were all viewing for their beliefs to become laws and one sect didn’t want another to gain more power than the other.
I agree with the fact that people were pushed out of communities for having different religious views. I believe that religion caused a lot of the conflicts that the colonies faced.
I think that the colonial Americans took their religious practices in a way that they became so extreme that religion was able to break up their unity. They could have practiced their religion, and at the same time unified against the British to get the independence they wanted faster.
Colonial America was a community of conflict rather than of consensus. The first Great Awakening left the people in religious confusion. This led to the breakdown of tradition and the attitude of unity between the colonists. The article states, "unbridled religious enthusiasm encouraged the quest for personal autonomy." This led to more class inequality and competition. As people became less reliant on the British, they were able to become independent, but they also separated themselves from others around them in the process. Wealthy land owners who had usually taken part in aiding the poor, selfishly ignored this responsibility. The south abounded in inequality. Twenty percent of the people living in North America were black slaves. Because the blacks were on such a different equality level than the New Englanders, their labor was unfairly used for the benefit of others. Social tension rose higher as settlers piled into the Americas looking for opportunity. Though all these conflicts separated the colonists, I believe that they also brought them together in one aspect, the desire for independence and freedoms.
Colonial America was a community of conflict rather than consensus. This is because the colonies were divided by social classes that faced many inequalities. Gary Nash also discovered the correlation between the decrease in patronage that “had once bound communities together” and the rise of “of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities…” The social classes that divided the communities weakened the patronage that had once strengthened and held the colonies together. There was also conflict over equality. The majority of the North believed in more complete equality whereas the South was racist towards blacks. The South, in order to hush the equality conflict, granted all free, white men complete equality. When it came to government, the South was strongly democratic. The North, however, lacked democratic features in their governments. Therefore, Colonial America was a community of political conflict. A community cannot possibly come to a consensus when they disagree with things such as government, equality, and social classes.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that it was more a community of conflict rather than consensus. The communities disagree on so many things so they cant be a consensus.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI also agree that is was a community of conflict rather than of consensus. I also said that they disagreed within their social classes and that the white men ensure racial solidarity. And sometimes space between the rich and poor
DeleteI agree that it was a community of conflict rather than consensus for the reasons you stated. I also think that the colonists were more centered around their own goals and ambitions than what was best for the communities.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that colonial america was a community of conflict rather than consensus. In this article, it stated that the social classes that divided the communities weakened the patronage that use to strengthen the other colonies together. “The wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations toward the poor for more selfish captialistic social relations that favored their class peers.” This statement is basically stating that the wealthy didn’t care what happened as long as they got what they wanted. The south was racist and the North believed that everyone should be treated equally. However, the North didn’t provide much democratic features and the south made sure that all the white men got equal rights. This proves that a community can’t be a consensus because they disagree on so many different things.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the colonial america was a community of conflict rather than consensus because as you said the social classes were divided and that is what I said. The rich and the poor both wanted racial solidarity but the rich also wanted space between them and the poor men.
DeleteI too agree that Colonial America was a community of conflict. I agree a major reason for this was because of the division of classes and rich taking advantage.
DeleteI agree with you that the social classes greatly weakened the communities. I also agree that a big conflict was the difference in views of equality between the North and the South.
DeleteI agree that the colonists were too separated in their beliefs and ideas to unify and create a community of consensus. Even just between the North and the South, there were several huge differences that stopped them from becoming one nation.
DeleteI think that it was communities of conflict because the laboring class in Virginia and Maryland experience consolidation of religious and social authority, whereas the land owning men further in the south had slaves and were under the sway of few powerful planters. Though the south is thought to have no equality it did produce most of the founding fathers including Washington, Jefferson and Madison so even though they were from the more unqualified south they did come to the aid of the country. Many different places like the slave holding in Virginia which is where these men came from. Though place like Brazil and Mexico had sharper class divisions the white men of the British colonies wanted to secure racial solidarity between the two groups which brought conflict within the different communities of men. Even with the conflict in the colonies the men, and women in Britain still thought that it was beater in America so many of them immigrated over to the New Word which brought conflict between the colonists and the crown. Though the New World was thought to be a free and great place there was still a lot of conflict between the poor and rich and the colonists and the people of Britain.
ReplyDeleteYou do have a point by saying they had social classes. Even though they did seprerate men and women, in the 1960 the entire united states separated people by color so would that make the unites states a conflict in the community world?
DeleteI agree with you that the social structure of the community was in part to blame for the conflict that occurred. Some colonists felt superior to others which caused tensions to rise in government and other areas in the colonies.
DeleteI understand where you are coming from but since civilizations have begun, and to the present, there has always been a conflict between rich and poor. There also has and will be a conflict between religions as well.
DeleteI agree with the conflict differences you had between the north and south. I related when you stated how the south is known to have no equality yet they have produced some of the most prestigious founding fathers.
DeleteDuring the 1700 life was little rough with a staggering life expectancy in the 50’s. The communities were small but consensual. The cities had a structured government all though they would not be socially accepted in today’s society they had a type of congress and one leader that made all of the decisions. Each community including MBC (Massachusetts bay colony) were self-sustained and could live without help for great Britain. One cannot say that there was no conflict in the colonies but there was not as much as they are made out to be. The colonies after the 1750’s had to combine as one nation and fight the Britain for their independence. In order for them to do that they had to of had come to an agreement and stop fighting each other and come as one and beat the Britain. In conclusion the colonies were consensual and not problematic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the colonies coming together to be one nation to fight against Britain. There will never be a perfect nation, unless it was a utopia, which is impossible. However, we should always continue to make our country better.
DeleteI believe that as time progressed Colonial America became a community of conflict. When the colonies were first settled they were centered on religion, family togetherness, and organized society and government. This became the way of life because this was the only way that early colonists could survive as a community. Once the colonies had been settled for a while, however, people became more interested in their personal agendas so to speak and the founding principles of Colonial America went by the wayside. As the article states, “… colonists gradually lost the religious discipline and social structure of the founding generations as they poured out onto the frontier or sailed the seas in search of fortune and adventure.” Colonists became more and more focused on their individual goals and ambitions, forgetting about the unity that built the colonies. Even though America still appealed to Europeans for land opportunities the reality was not what they expected once they arrived.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your last sentence about how it wasn't as always as they expected but there must have been enough opportunity to keep them coming.
DeleteI agree with the part where you wrote that people became more interested in their own personal business rather than everyone's.
DeleteI do agree with you that the colonial colonies were more of a conflict rather than a consensus for the simple fact that they were losing their basics and losing their foundation that they once built when they first got there. Once they settled for a while (like you said), they were starting to lose the foundation they built and the goals and ambitions they all were trying to achieve when they first started to colonize the area. I do believe that the colonists were disagreeing with each other on many things and were trying to run everything on their own.
DeleteI agree with you that colonial colonies were a conflict. It is true that many people started becoming less interested in other peoples life and cared more about theirs.
DeleteI agree that the new world was centered on religion at first. In fact, they were so focused on this, that when they began to doubt their religion, many other differences became more apparent. People began to be more selfish and forgot about the others around them. This caused a community of conflict.
DeleteThe article had valid points for both sides. Colonial America was both a community of conflict and consensus. However, during this time period, colonial America was the best place to live than anywhere else. Even though it wasn’t a perfect place, there was still some religious tolerance and economic and social freedoms. Jack Greene argued that with the dramatic decrease in difference between England and the New World “has obscured the fact that colonies outside of New England, like Virginia and Maryland, actually experienced a consolidation of religious and social authority throughout.” For a long time, in the south slaves were treated like indentured servants and after their time was served, they had a chance to start a life on their own. Even though it wasn’t perfect, immigrants came and still come to America in search for a new start as it is the “land of opportunity.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with the last sentence in this post. Regardless of whether it was a community of conflict or consensus people did continue to come into America for a new opportunity.
DeleteI do agree that the colonial colonies are a great place to live even now; however, I do believe that the colonies were more of a conflict than a consensus because they were still young people trying to thrive in a new/young land so they were still trying to work out the social kinks.
DeleteI agree that there was both conflict and consensus in colonial America, and I appreciate how you mentioned that immigrants traveled there for opportunity.
DeleteI think that Colonial America was a colony of conflict, rather than consensus. The text stated that there was a lot of population pressure on the land; which some historians believe lead to the societal class that was without land. The people in this class were then forced to go into the cities and look for work, or till resident plots in the countryside. In the time period there was a growing competitiveness between the individual colonies; therefore, paternalism, which once had brought the colonies together, was in decline. The rich class then selfishly ditched certain tasks for the poor class to deal with. That being said, I don’t think that America was a colony of consensus they weren't working together to move forward, they were growing apart and doing what was necessary for that individual community. Lastly, with independence came slavery, and all the positives and negatives it brought along with it as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the colonial colonies were more of a conflict rather than a consensus for the same reasons you believed, especially the point that stated that the colonies were against each other and competing against each other rather than working together to try and move forward.
DeleteI strongly agree with the points you stated on how the north and south did not work together to move forward. I felt that they were delaying the matter of progressing with each other too.
DeleteI agree with your stance on the article and liked how you used more than 2 examples to support your side of the argument.
DeleteI agree with your thinking and the examples you provided to support it. I also think that with independence came slavery.
DeleteI also feel that colonial America was full of conflict. I agree with the logic that growing competitive nature led to conflict.
DeleteIn my opinion, I think that the Colonial America was more of a community of conflict than it was consensus. One of the first examples from the text would be "..likewise traces the rise of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities, marking the end of the patronage and paternalism that had once bound communities together" This quote is a great example on how the colonies were very individualistic and instead of striving to progress as one with developments they focused on themselves creating much conflict. The major differences between the north and south included religion, agriculture, and society/government conflict; for example, "..wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations toward the poor.." These disagreements were the base of the conflict and it's impossible to have a strong society with these problems. Again, the colonies were a community of conflict and they chose to not be smart about the issues revolving around them.
ReplyDeleteAlexis,
DeleteI liked how you backed up your opinion with 2 quotes from the passage. It really made me able to see your side of the issue.
I agree that with your opinion because once people became wealthy, many of them wouldn't want to do anything with the poor.
DeleteI agree that the disagreements caused by differences were the base of conflict, and I think that you described the effects of competition well.
DeleteI believe that Colonial America was composed of communities of consensus. They colonies were all formed by innovative people who had similar views. The southern colonies were formed to be an economical venture by hard-working people. They had differing views than the north about slaves and indentured servants but they were united with common views. The colonies were made of hardworking people who wanted to succeed. They had to come together to survive in the rugged terrain and they had to lean on each other to make in in life.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you kept it short but if you added a quote your argument would be stronger. It made me think a little more about the other side of the argument.
DeleteAfter reading the selection I think that the communities of conflict. I think that they are communities of conflict because of a few quotes from the reading. First quote, "...rise of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities...". In this quote it shows that the people were becoming more self sufficient and that they were less reliant on the British. In stating this it shows that the people and their views had begun to change. The second quote, "The wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations towards the poor for more selfish capitalistic social relations that favored their class peers." This second quotes shows that the wealthier people were starting to ban together and change the way that people viewed them. The more wealthy people got the more the banned together to create a strong structure so that slaves wouldn't revolt. Both of these quotes from the reading show that there was a lot of conflict centered around the colonies and their communities.
ReplyDeleteBru'N Tribitt
ReplyDelete9/22/14
The early New England colonies were very different to the stories that we were told during are early education. The colonies were not unified. The communities of Colonial America consisted of conflict. Social structures changed and religious discipline of the colonialists. There was also a decline of social order in colonial cities. The wealthy abandoned their traditional obligations and used the poor to fuel selfish capitalistic relations with other class peers. Rich colonialists also supported the poor whites so they then would turn their racism towards blacks. There was also issues with racism between Europeans and Indians which created differences. The article quotes, “Increasingly, Nash contended, class antagonism split communities.” The colonies were not unified and they consisted of conflict
I agree with your idea that there was an internal struggle in the communities. The idea that the upper classes tried to turn the lower class whites against blacks and natives really shows how the rich were self centered.
DeleteI believe that Colonial America was a community of conflict instead of a consensus community. “Like Greene, many historians have focused on sectional differences between the colonies, and the peculiar nature of social equality and inequality in each.” This quote is saying that there are different things going on between the colonies and one of the differences is the social equality of the colonies and inequality. Many Americans began having an obsession with their freedom. In the text it states, "...the slaves societies of the South were hierarchical, aristocratic communities under the sway of a few powerful planters." The English stated that the South was having a more inequality community. Also, many wealthy people abandoned their traditional obligations and became more selfish to the poor. This marked the end of the patronage and paternalism.
ReplyDeleteColonial America was made almost entirely of communities of conflict rather than communities of consensus. Although the communities were said to have been “close knit, homogeneous, and hierarchical” by early historians, there is reason to believe that they were just the opposite. Because the colonial society was just beginning to expand, colonists “lost the religious discipline and social structure of the founding generation,” as it is theorized by Richard Bushman. This demonstrates the beginning of a breakdown which includes the rise of new social inequalities. These inequalities can be traced to “the rise of a competitive, individualistic social order in colonial cities, marking the end of patronage and paternalism that had once bound communities together,” according to Gary Nash in The Urban Crucible. This illustrates the beginning of a selfish nature that would soon be housed by the colonists, causing them to disregard the thought of working with those around them in order to create a better colonial society; as a result, conflict stemmed from this mindset.
ReplyDeleteThe colonies of America were originally a close community. They all shared a religion in the communities this resulted in all of the community members agreeing on issues due to their beliefs. This however pushed some people out. These people would take the religions to an extreme and where thus ousted from the community for not going with the flow. Others left the religion and had strayed views as land became scarce and people had to move farther out of the grasps of the church. Finally immigrants that weren’t of the same religion flooded America. These resulted in a large conflict in interest. The masses couldn’t come to a consensus because they weren’t all managed by the same faith and belief. These people all having independent thinking and faiths were all viewing for their beliefs to become laws and one sect didn’t want another to gain more power than the other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that people were pushed out of communities for having different religious views. I believe that religion caused a lot of the conflicts that the colonies faced.
DeleteI think that the colonial Americans took their religious practices in a way that they became so extreme that religion was able to break up their unity. They could have practiced their religion, and at the same time unified against the British to get the independence they wanted faster.
DeleteColonial America was a community of conflict rather than of consensus. The first Great Awakening left the people in religious confusion. This led to the breakdown of tradition and the attitude of unity between the colonists. The article states, "unbridled religious enthusiasm encouraged the quest for personal autonomy." This led to more class inequality and competition. As people became less reliant on the British, they were able to become independent, but they also separated themselves from others around them in the process. Wealthy land owners who had usually taken part in aiding the poor, selfishly ignored this responsibility. The south abounded in inequality. Twenty percent of the people living in North America were black slaves. Because the blacks were on such a different equality level than the New Englanders, their labor was unfairly used for the benefit of others. Social tension rose higher as settlers piled into the Americas looking for opportunity. Though all these conflicts separated the colonists, I believe that they also brought them together in one aspect, the desire for independence and freedoms.
ReplyDelete