Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A child's point of view of this so called "Utopia"

As and Elementary Education major, I tend to look into a lot of things from a child’s or educators perspective because that’s where my specific interests lie.  Thomas More’s Utopia gave me an opportunity to do this, and I have to say, the society presented in Book 2 would not be one most children would want to grow up in.

On page 551 you learn that in Utopia each person is trained in a particular trade.  Of course that is not all that striking, but what is seemingly harsh is how a young boy’s trade is established. “The son is trained to his father’s craft, for which most feel a natural inclination” (551). That doesn’t seem too bad, but those children who have a different interest are in a very particular situation.  These boys would be put up for adoption to a family that practices the trade they wish to pursue.  To have to leave your family as a child because you may have other interests completely disvalues the son’s attachment to his family in favor of a particular trade.

In Utopia, after the age of five, until the age in which you are married, eating arrangements are not all that favorable. “both boys and girls up to the age of marriage, either wait on table, or , if ot old and strong enough for that, stand by in absolute silence. They eat whatever is handed to them by those sitting at the table, and have no other set time for their meals” (556).  Although it is understood that no one ever goes without, this way of eating is far from desired.  Standing for any extended period of time in complete silence would be a challenge for many adults, expecting it of children seems almost unreasonable.  Also being expected to eat whatever is handed to you take could put a person in a situation where they may not eat, if they are handed only food items in which they do not like. The text makes it seem the children have no say in the matter.

The perception of children in the society is shined on by negative light.  Criminals are forced to wear gold and silver so the common people can scorn them. A similar treatment is given to the children. When what we would consider a precious stone is found, for instance a diamond, it is given to the children as a play thing because they “feel proud and pleased with such gaudy decorations. But after, when they grow a bit older and notice that only babies like such toys, they lay them aside” (558).  The word gaudy has an apparent negative connotation, as well as the word babies in this particular occasion.  In modern terms, when a child plays with a toy, it’s considered innocent. In Utopia the positive connation of children’s innocence is missing.

The entirety of these situations may be “perfection” for the adults, particularly the men of the society, but the children’s emotions are hardly considered.






Tuesday, April 12, 2011

If you ask me, I'd say King Charles was asking for it

If you look solely at the account of King Charles’s trial on pages 1739-41, the king comes off as arrogant, unremorseful, and disrespectful. I understand he had feelings that parliament was in the wrong, but, possibly if he had sung to different tune, he would have kept his head for a little while longer. In a situation in which you are on trial with the chance of execution, it would be in your best interest to at the very lease reframe from smiling.
                The account from The Moderate, although short, provides several examples where King Charles should have just bite the bullet and behaved differently.  Upon entering the court, neither King Charles nor parliament took off their hats. ”The king came into the court, his hat on, and the Commissioners with theirs on also; no congratulation or motion of hats at all” (1739). Neither party wanted to show superiority to the other.  I understand that King Charles thought he was right, I really do, but its striking that he could not have played this situation better. Whether or not he did it sincerely is irrelevant. If King Charles was playing his cards right he would have shown respect to the people who currently had his life in their hands. Wouldn’t you think?

                As his charges were read, the king maintained his smug attitude to the situation. “The king smiled often during the time, especially at those words therein, viz that Charles Stuart was a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy of the commonwealth.” (1739) Really Charles, smiling? SMOOTH.

                The king continues with the same antics by refusing response to his charges, reminding parliament that he is their “lawful king”. He then proceeds to tell the Lord President that “England was never an elective kingdom but a hereditary kingdom, for near a thousand years, therefore let me know by what authority I am called hither.” (1740) It seems fairly ignorant to not realize while you’re sitting in a courtroom, that those in prosecuting you are in the authority position. (Whether or not legitimately so).

 Logic has seemingly escaped the king.  However, due to the strong religious feelings King Charles’s presents, he comes off as a martyr and not crazy or dumb. He leaves the courtroom saying he is not afraid of the sword. He truly believed that if he had given in to this “illegitimate” power he would be sinning. He was willing to die for what he thought was right. Something we do not see a lot of on the modern political field. If Charles was king today, maybe he would have played the game a bit better.




A separate thought, but I think it is important to remember, that Charles was in the situation because he was not liked by the people. Perhaps in the actual courtroom he was a little more diplomatic than described in the passage.  If the spin we had the opportunity to read was authored by someone who opposed the king as well, then the author possibly could have written about Charles’s words and King Charles persona based on his present hatred for the king not on the facts.

Whitehall Palace

"Then his body was put in a coffin covered with black velvet and removed to his lodging chamber in Whitehall." (page 1744)


This past winter session I studied abroad in London and one morning we watched the changing of the horse guards at no other than Whitehall Palace. Figured I would attach a few pictures for anyone who has never been there. As silly as this sounds I was so excited the entire time I was reading "A Perfect Diurnal of Some Passages in Parliament, No 288, because the whole time I was thinking I know where Whitehall is!