This is sort of an expansion on what we've been discussing in class about traditions and holidays, where what we practice today is just a collective memory of what we've all done in the past. If you observe what's around you in everyday life, you can connect it to something that must have occurred in the past, and kept occurring, until it became a collective memory of everyone.

It is interesting to read about how the study of memory started with no relation to history, but as time passed, it sort of slowly crept up on it, and now has a major effect on our study of history. Due to this class being about American History, I sort of just created the association between memory studies and history in my head.

This effort by ordinary people to celebrate local memory rather than civic memory, is likely due to the fact that for the most part, ordinary people don't really have any personal connection with our government and our government's history. For example, when someone wins the presidency, ordinary people aren't necessarily happy or proud that that person won, because ordinary people have no idea what it feels like to come from a class or status of people that would even have the chance to become president. However, let's say that a person from your hometown was on the team that won the Super Bowl or some other major sporting event, you and your whole town would be ecstatic, because a person who experienced the same conditions you did went on to achieve something remarkable. Even though the presidential election is much more important than whoever wins the Super Bowl, ordinary people don't really have much of an investment in the election, because they don't really have any connection with the people who are running for office.

This is a unique way of describing what patriotism is and what it means to different people. So called patriots in the present day will criticize other people for sitting for the national anthem/pledge of allegiance, criticizing the president or government, and many other actions they might deem unpatriotic. However, by performing these rebellious acts, people are actually exhibiting their own brand of patriotism, protesting or criticizing the current structure in which we live as a call for it to be improved. To criticize the nation is not unpatriotic, rather it is the ultimate form of patriotism, as it recognizes that our nation could be better, rather than just accepting it for what it is.

It's interesting to see how traditions slowly change overtime, to the extent that what a tradition looks like today, would be vastly different from what it looked like when it was first put in place. What's so interesting about these drastic changes is that, if one day the president or congress where to implement a massive change in how Thanksgiving is celebrated, whatever it may be, there would be outrage. People would defend Thanksgiving by asserting it is a tradition, and that it would not be the same if it was not celebrated the way it always is. But there is little protest when these changes happen gradually, no matter how drastic they are.

This line stuck out to me a lot and immediately made me think of how mostly all of the traditions that are celebrated in the United States are centuries old. Holidays like the 4th of July, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc. all became American traditions early on in our country's history. Since these traditions have been so valuable to people for so long, that's why any attempt to alter or remove a long standing tradition is usually met with protest. This would also explain why the addition of a new tradition is also met with protest, because to make a new tradition would mean to liken an entirely new celebration or memorial to one that has been around for much longer. This made me think of the pushback on MLK day as a new American tradition, which seems like a completely reasonable holiday, as well as the removal of Confederate statues and monuments, which also seems like a reasonable thing to do, but since they have been around for so long and symbolize the early days of American history, as also met with protest and pushback.

One thing about historical monument and artifacts that I've never really understood is the need to maintain them or repair them. While I understand the need to maintain important buildings like the US capital or the Washington Monument, why repair Plymouth Rock. After all it is a rock, and all rocks will eventually erode away. Similarly historical monuments like Stonehenge, which was built thousands of years ago, is bound to erode and fall over, but yet we feel the need to restore and maintain them. If you have to continually repair a historical monument, at what point does it no longer hold the same historical meaning or importance?

This line alludes to much of what we are discussing in class about collective memory, especially when it comes to the United States. Plymouth Rock has become a symbol of the United States, because it is the place we have all collectively agreed that the pilgrims landed and settled. While this was taught to us at a young age, the people who taught us that were likely themselves taught at a young age. It's funny that we all agree on this "fact" but yet it's completely false. This too relates to the quote about real history being hidden under a bunch of palimpsests of apocryphal tales, because the tale of plymouth rock is one that everyone knows, but once you think about it, it is doubtful that the pilgrims came to the new world and landed on that one specific rock.

This quote and the varied ways that the story is told that follow reminded me of the quote that went something along the lines of, "Real history lies under a palimpsests of apocryphal tales." At first I didn't really understand what this quote meant because I was distracted by the two words I was unfamiliar with. After thinking about it again, this quote rings true not just for the tale of Pocahontas, but for most of if not all of history. We can never be certain about what the "real history" of this nation is, because all we are given to try and decipher it is a bunch of stories that have been written time and time again, many of which contradict each other, or add up to not make much sense at all.

It's interesting to me to read about the importance of the city of Galveston to the ending of slavery, as I've only ever heard of the city in songs and maybe in movies or TV shows. In school we learn all about the importance of cities like Boston and Philadelphia to the American Revolution and US independence. The city of Galveston should be taught in a similar way, as the city is one of the most important in the history of US slavery and civil rights.

This line is quite jarring to me as this is the first time I've ever heard or read it. This quote to me sums up the true intentions of the confederacy seceding from the union and starting the Civil War. It has always been a debate in politics and history about the true intentions of the fighting of the Civil War, and although economic and cultural aspects did play a part, it was ultimately over slavery. As stated, the southern states truly believed themselves the superior race, and went as far as to leave the nation, which in the century prior had fought for its independence, for the sole purpose of upholding the oppressive institution of slavery.

This is a striking line that caused me to think about the meaning of The 4th of July as our "independence day." While it is true that the holiday marks the independence of the United States from the control of Great Britain, a distinction should be made between the independence of the United States, and the independence of those who live here. July 4th, 1776 did not grant everyone, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "...unalienable rights..." as much of our population was still enslaved. While the holiday does celebrate the birth of our nation, it should be noted that independence for all was something that would continue to be fought for decades after the Declaration of Independence was put in place.

This line doesn't state it explicitly, but although emancipation was a monumental event in US and world history, and is celebrated nation wide by black communities, it was just a step in the long fight that is civil rights. Slaves that were freed were released from the institution of slavery, but many were now subjected to sharecropping, where they still lived and worked on the same plantations where they were once enslaved. While emancipation changed the legality of slavery, the owners of these newly freed African Americans retained their racist sentiment and undoubtedly treated their slaves the same, or very similarly to how they treated them during slavery.

This is an extremely heavy, thought provoking quote that truly made me stop and consider what the answer would be. For the vast majority of American history, African Americans have been subjected to abhorrent treatment under the institutions of slavery and racism, and yet the nation that has mistreated these people for so long would not be what it is today without African Americans. If you think about it much of American history has been a continuous fight by African Americans for their civil rights, which has ultimately impacted the way we legislate civil rights for all citizens. The African American fight for civil rights has literally changed the US constitution, decided elections, and countless other changes to the country, so my answer would be no, America would not be America without African Americans.

This short line really stuck out to me because I've only ever lived in a time period where black Americans had their own "patron saints". As a white American we have a long list of presidents, explorers, scientists, etc. that we look up to as being remarkable people, but the institution of racism had never allowed a black American to rise to such a high status. This one line goes to show just how significant the work of MLK, as well as other civil rights leaders, to be able to overcome centuries of racism to rise up and finally reach such a status where we even have a holiday to commemorate him.