The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
A Study in Scarlet
Arthur Conan Doyle Collection
>
A Study in Scarlet 2012 - Part Two
We generally call it the American War of Independence. The subjects of George III would have seen it in a far different light to those of subsequent generations. My grandparents were quite happy for us to be the colonial masters of one-quarter (third?)of the globe but my parent's generation began to see that this was really enslavement by another name, hence the postwar granting of independence to many of our colonies although, in reality, we could no longer afford to administer them.
Amanda wrote: "BunWat wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Something which struck me when reading the first chapter of Part 2 is the unflattering descriptions CD gives to the American West scenery, which we are accustomed to ..."True. Doyle wouldn't havethought of the movement across the west as a divine destiny. But he would have agreed that democracy, etc. was for the people who held the power - i.e., the Anglo-Saxon Protestants. And all others would be held as different and not part of the vision.
MadgeUK wrote: "Manifest Destiny taught 19th century Americans that it was God's will that they spread out over the continent....I think many Americans still view the West through a romantic haze because of the co..."Yes competing visions of world dominance. :-) But they did it quite differently. The Europeans colonialized. Americans via war.
When I was in Europe, I had so many Europeans lecture me on how Americans interfered in world affairs. I said, true. And we learned through the best in that business - you.... :-)
MadgeUK wrote: "We generally call it the American War of Independence. The subjects of George III would have seen it in a far different light to those of subsequent generations. My grandparents were quite happy fo..."Thanks for that info. I never knew what the English called it.
The Brits of Doyle's time did not think of colonialisation as bringing democracy to other nations but to bringing both Christianity and 'civilisation'. Although we were a democratic nation ourselves we ruled the Empire by autocracy. In this we perhaps differed from Americans who, because of their own history, were more inclined to apply the old French slogan 'Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite' to conquered peoples if only at a philosophical level. Victorian Brits had a Queen Empress and we ruled. By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-fifth of the world's population at the time and there was certainly a feeling that it was God's Will, just like it was God's Will that women and slaves should be held in subjection. Not a Divine plan but a sign that we were doing the right thing:).
...The Europeans colonialized. Americans via war...We fought plenty of skirmishes over our colonies too. What often started out as peaceful trading usually ended up as fights over land. No-one likes occupying forces on their land, as we have found out in Iraq and Afghanistan, both invaded in the name of 'democracy'.
MadgeUK wrote: "The Brits of Doyle's time did not think of colonialisation as bringing democracy to other nations but to bringing both Christianity and 'civilisation'. Although we were a democratic nation ourselv..."Americans pre-WWII equated democracy with Christian principles. That changed for the most part after the war.
I don't think you can separate "American" Manifest Destiny from the colonial search for the "Passage to India." (Agreed, it took on another flavor once the U.S. achieved Independence.) I, therefore, disagree with statements of difference between colonial expansion by Europe and the U.S. "making the world safe for democracy." They were both motivated by the same thing (cash) and utilized the same means to get it (violence and oppression). You can pretty it up with philosophical differences, but it really all comes down to greed.
Sorry if I get heated about this. I've taught too many history and literature courses in which I've had to disabuse the products of the U.S. school system of their naive notions.
Lynnm wrote: "Americans pre-WWII equated democracy with Christian principles. That changed for the most part after the war."Possibly in your corner of the U.S., but definitely not in mine.
Jessie wrote: "Lynnm wrote: "Americans pre-WWII equated democracy with Christian principles. That changed for the most part after the war."Possibly in your corner of the U.S., but definitely not in mine."
Agreed Jessie. It is the same here in Ohio too. Many people believe that the founding Fathers were all Evangelical Christians and the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were based on the Bible.
The fact the Jefferson was a deist and that our founding documents were based on Englightment principles does not enter into the mix at all.
Jessie wrote: "I don't think you can separate "American" Manifest Destiny from the colonial search for the "Passage to India." (Agreed, it took on another flavor once the U.S. achieved Independence.) I, there..."
Agreed a second time. The idea of the White Man's Burden gave supposedly "civilised" people an excuse to kill and displace thousands of innocent people both here in the US and in the British colonial empire.
MadgeUK wrote: "...The Europeans colonialized. Americans via war...We fought plenty of skirmishes over our colonies too. What often started out as peaceful trading usually ended up as fights over land. No-one li..."
In Doyle's novel Watson suffers a serious injury while fighting in Afghanistan. The creators of the BBC Sherlock didn't have to change a single thing about that plot point when they updated the story.
Governments don't seem to learn much from history sometimes.
Wasn't Columbus looking for a passage to India? He thought if he went west he would find India. That's why the native people he found in the Americas were called Indians.Why was he looking for a passage to India? WEALTH. He and his European followers got their wealth by oppression and violence.
America starts growing and wants some of that wealth, so they developed the Manifest Destiny doctrine to keep Europeans out of the Americas so the USA can dominate that hemisphere. Of course oppression leads to rebellion which leads to the poor "white man's burden."
Emily wrote: "Wasn't Columbus looking for a passage to India? He thought if he went west he would find India. That's why the native people he found in the Americas were called Indians.Why was he looking for ..."
Yep, that's it. After Marco Polo's little jaunt, everyone wanted in on the game, and a westward passage to India was the prize!
And Manifest Destiny actually did lead, partially, to that passage to India. The U.S. eventually colonized Guam and made inroads in the "-nesias." Nothing is done in isolation.
BunWat wrote: "Wait a second. A Passage to India is a 1924 E M Forster novel. The thing that was being sought by Columbus was a westward route to Asia, not a passage to India. You cannot say that Manifest Destiny took on another flavor once the US achieved independence because the theory of Manifest Destiny wasn't proposed until 1845, 69 years fter the US declared independence. Throwing in the 1899 Kipling poem? Its quite a mish mosh of reference soup we got going on here!"Well, it was a passage to India that was sought, and eventually Emerson, Thoreau, and all the other nice Transcendentalists decided they were satisfied with the India within--about the time that the revised version came out called Manifest Destiny.
And because we're talking about westward expansion, it *is* valid to say that the flavor changed after Independence. It didn't happen overnight, but over time, as the "American" West became smaller, and smaller.
And I believe Emily already addressed your Kipling issues. :^) Indians still call themselves Indians in the U.S. today.
I agree Bunwat, there is a bit of a mish-mash of history here. Columbus's original proposal to the Portuguese king was for a voyage to the East Indies and he later insisted that the lands he visited during his four voyages for the Spanish king were not part of Asia. (BTW calling Native Americans 'Indians' is no longer acceptable according to my NA friends.) Mixing up the stated terms of the Manifest Destiny 1845 and the various British discoveries and settlement of lands is IMO 'misinformative'. Although there were several aborted attempts by Elizabeth I and James I in the late 16C to colonise America, the first permanent trading settlement led by John Smith in 1607 was financed by the private Virginia Trading Company, not the crown, which did not take over until 1624. Later settlements were made by various religious groups fleeing persecution, not by those seeking wealth. India was colonised in a similar way by the private East India Company, formed in 1600 as a joint stock company which was not taken over by the crown until 1858. Africa, on the other hand, was colonised by the government via The Royal African Company from 1672 onward as part of the slave trade, which was later followed by private exploration companies and missionaries. A number of British colonies were also ceded by Treaty, following successful wars against the Spanish, Dutch and French.
What became known as the British Empire was acquired piecemeal over three centuries, sometimes financed by monarchs, sometimes by private companies (and pirates). There was no overall plan like that stated by Sullivan and others to be 'the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the [American] continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.'
Kipling's satirical poem, The White Man's Burden, was his own individual view of colonialism, not a statement about intent and it was the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance (1897), again, not the government/crown, which focused on mobilizing Christians in the work of foreign missionary efforts, based on Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (KJV).
Conan Doyle was a soldier of the Empire and, although he renounced his Christianity, he probably shared the ethos of the time regarding the superiority of the white Christian man over other races and religions.
Leading up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan The Manifest Destiny was resurrected under the auspices of Rumsfeld, Cheney et al and called The Plan for the New American Century (PNAC). Their Statement of Principle in 1997 would have gladdened the hearts of its earlier founders:-
http://www.newamericancentury.org/sta...
BunWat wrote: "No Columbus was not looking for a passage to India. He was looking for a route to the Indies which is not India, its southeast asia. India, Indonesia, Indochina, all take their names from this old name for the whole region which included Cambodia, Thailand, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, all sorts of countries. Specifically, Columbus was trying to get to Japan and in fact returned from his first voyage believing he had reached Japan. He was looking for a westward passage to the Indies because the Ottoman Empire had closed and/or raised taxes on most of the spice trading routes eastward from Europe. I don't know who you mean when you say he and his european followers, Columbus didn't really have followers. Unless you mean the Europeans who followed him into the Americas? In any case the Europeans of the fifteenth century had no monopoly on oppression and violence."
Yes, I do mean the Europeans who came after him. I am, after all, writing this off the top of my head.
I understand what you are saying, but it is, rightfully, also termed a Passage to India. Otherwise, you wouldn't have this:
http://www.daypoems.net/plainpoems/21...
Or this:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/hns...
Or this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10...
Or this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CYrQ...
Shall I go on? The "Passage to India" is a concept often used in academia in the U.S. in both literary and historical studies.
And, for the record, here is my original statement, to get it back to the "Study in Scarlet" discussion:
"I, therefore, disagree with statements of difference between colonial expansion by Europe and the U.S. "making the world safe for democracy." They were both motivated by the same thing (cash) and utilized the same means to get it (violence and oppression). You can pretty it up with philosophical differences, but it really all comes down to greed."
This statement was made in response to several statements about expansionism, beginning with this one by MadgeUK:
"Both Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson promoted the idea that it was America's destiny to promote democracy throughout the world, not just North America.
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/m/Man...
Naturally, Europeans were hostile to this idea and we can perhaps discern some hostility by CD towards America and Americans because of it, although the British clearly thought they had a 'manifest destiny' of their own since they had colonised 25% of the globe!"
I *think* this was because of the discussion of the European view of the American West. :^)
My ego isn't tied up in this discussion, so I'm stopping my portion in this bit right now. I'd prefer to discuss the text. Although I do have a response for MadgeUK...
MadgeUK wrote: "BTW calling Native Americans 'Indians' is no longer acceptable according to my NA friends."I am an Indian.
;^) OK, I'll let you off the hook. Like many people who live in my part of the world, I have ancestors who were Indian, but I have always identified as white. That's why my ancestors hid in the woods over here in NW Alabama during Removal, so I won't let all their good work go to waste.
I imagine I have more Indian friends than you do, MadgeUK. Most Indians don't really give a rat's pattootie what you call them as long as you are nice.
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/arti...
This attitude differs from tribe to tribe, but my original statement:
"Indians still call themselves Indians in the U.S. today."
is true.
As for: "Mixing up the stated terms of the Manifest Destiny 1845 and the various British discoveries and settlement of lands is IMO 'misinformative'."
May I remind yoy that you started it? "And there are still quite a few that harbour these ideas, especially on the religious right of American politics. Both Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson promoted the idea that it was America's destiny to promote democracy throughout the world, not just North America.
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/m/Man...
Naturally, Europeans were hostile to this idea and we can perhaps discern some hostility by CD towards America and Americans because of it, although the British clearly thought they had a 'manifest destiny' of their own since they had colonised 25% of the globe!"
I understand it was said jokingly. That's OK with me.
Again, no ego from me. I would just as soon get back to the text...
I am not arguing from an egotistical p.o.v. as I am not a particularly patriotic person nor a defender of colonisation:I stand corrected about the use of the word 'Indian' but I have been corrected myself by Americans on a number of occasions about this, although I realise there is still controversy surrounding it:-
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aihmte...
May I remind you that you started it?
Started what? England was late into the colonising business (1607) compared with Portugal (1502) and Spain (1516).
My point was that Britain did not, until recent times, promote democracy throughout the world/Empire, as America did with the Manifest Destiny. It encouraged and chartered trade organisations and later the missionaries promoted Christianity. The official line was to trade, to leave religion alone and to promote autocracy - the monarch - not democracy, so I maintain that it was different to the Manifest Destiny.
I do not agree that all colonising was motivated by 'cash'. Quite a lot of it was motivated by the wish to explore new horizons, see new vegetation, new animals etc. (a la Darwin) And quite a lot more was motivated by people either fleeing religious or economic oppression. In Paradise Lost (1667), for instance, Milton mentions people going to find a New World that is like Eden and where God: 'Intended to create, and therein plant/A generation, whom his choice regard/Should favour equal to the Sons of Heaven'. Captain Cook's explorations to NZ and Australia were funded by the Royal Society who commissioned him to draw maps of coastlines in the South Pacific. There was quite a lot of altruism and a genuine sense of adventure around the early explorers/colonisers. Greed came later when everyone discovered what a wealth of food and minerals these new regions had.
It also has to be remembered that the UK is comprised of small islands with far fewer resources and a more restricted climate for growing food etc., which created a necessity for exploration and trade to feed a rapidly growing population. It could be argued (and has been) that America is much more self sufficient and had no need to colonise anywhere, no need therefore for a 'manifest destiny'.
But as you say we must get back to the text.
Yes, we have gone off topic. :-)The only reason I brought up Manifest Destiny was in connection to the treatment of specific groups in the U.S. in the 1800s....in the case of the novel - Mormons.
And yes, MD was for economic reasons - both for the individual and the nation - but for national interests, practical reasons - the east was becoming crowded, but there was a religious component as well. God wanted the country to grow and prosper because we are a "Christian" nation. And democracy and Christianity become linked - of course not everyone thinks this way, but the majority certainly did, consciously or not.
Certain groups who aren' t considered to be Christian or who aren't from Northern European descent aren't part of the vision because they are deemed "inferior" or too different. There are always negative depictions of those people as well.
Obviously Doyle is British, but the Brits have those same types of ideas towards some of the people they colonized as well, so I don't think it is a stretch to think that Doyle might categorize Mormons as the Other.
Obviously Doyle is British, but the Brits have those same types of ideas towards some of the people they colonized as well, so I don't think it is a stretch to think that Doyle might categorize Mormons as the Other.I agree. To most Victorians anyone who wasn't British were 'Other'. Also, this was a time when established Christianity in England, that of the CofE, was in turmoil and new sects like, Methodists, Baptists etc. were challenging the status quo, as well as the Oxford Movement calling for a return to catholic practices. In this climate, Mormons would be seen as another sect, and a foreign one at that, and therefore a threat to the establishment.
Madge - I think that's a good word choice - a "threat" to the establishment.This past semester as a fun way to teach this concept I used an episode from Doctor Who called "Midnight." The Doctor is on a closed passenger bus with a few other people when the bus stops. All of a sudden there is a knocking on the outside of the bus - the "alien" trying to get in. Everyone is frightened - what is this being trying to get into their closed area? Once the alien gets in, the people want to kill it - it is a possible threat.
Also interesting, the alien doesn't know the language so it mimicks their speech. Then, it speaks in sync with them. And this is where they want to kill the alien, the alien speaks ahead of them.
And that is the fear - that the Other will take the power away from those who have the power. To me, that' s what it always comes down to - power. People always say money, but money is a way to get power.
I agree Lynn. Power is the Prime Mover, all else is secondary.
I am part American Indian and I know only a few Indians who would object to being called Indian. They certainly weren't Native Americans since they were there long before the continent was called America.
I suppose it should be 'Native to America' since native means 'belonging by birth to a people regarded as indigenous to a certain place, especially a preliterate people'. 'Indian' can be confused with natives of India. Certainly in the UK, to be described as an Indian would imply that you were from the Asian sub continent. Or do American Indians acknowledge that they are thought to have originated in India, from across the Bering Straits etc., so find 'Indian' to be accurate? What about the term 'Red Indian' - is that still used? And what was America called by its native peoples before it was renamed?
Never heard the term 'red Indian' used. Both North and South America had many indigenous peoples with different languages and cultures. Each group would have called their native land something different. Their concept of land/ownership was different from the European idea, so I'm not sure what, if anything, they called the continent and the area(s) they called home.BTW: If we say we are Indian in the USA, most people know what type of Indian. If it is an area of the country with both Asian and American Indians, they would say American Indian.
MadgeUK wrote: "What about the term 'Red Indian' - is that still used? And what was America called by its native peoples before it was renamed?."Probably it would be considered pejorative to many because of past usage, but I'm involved in some yDNA groups, and they use that term pretty freely. The Q haplogroup is found in the U.S. (one subclade exclusively for "red indians") and in India. But I've only heard the "red indians" discussing it that way. It's very interesting!
Emily wrote: "I am part American Indian and I know only a few Indians who would object to being called Indian. They certainly weren't Native Americans since they were there long before the continent was called ..."I wrote a paper in grad school on the book Ramona, which is a novel from the 1800s that speaksof the treatment of Native Americans. I would say that more than half the scholarly essays used Indian rather than Native American, and these were essays written by Native Americans. And in my paper I used Indian as well as Native American, mainly because it seemed so cumbersome to use Native American over and over again in a 20 page paper!
BunWat wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "What about the term 'Red Indian' - is that still used? And what was America called by its native peoples before it was renamed? ..."I've never heard the term Red Indian used by an..."
I like First Nations - never heard that before.
I regularly contribute to the American Indian College Fund whose goal is to provide scholarships to "Native Americans" to attend tribal colleges. I think that sums up how Indians view themselves.Incidentally, if anyone wants to help the Indians, this organization is one of the best. Many organizations that say they "help," do not. Well, they help themselves!
The term 'Red Indian' was the one used when I was a gal and not pejoratively - perhaps to distinguish from the Indian Indians in the Empire. Were American Indians ethnically all one group?
I appreciate all those factors Bunwat and have always been sympathetic to Indian culture and history but what about DNA? Doesn't that determine ethnicity these days?
Although there are occasionally mistakes made, Wikipedia gives good general information. This is what I found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_A..."Far from forming a single ethnic group, Native Americans were divided into several hundred ethno-linguistic groups, most of them grouped into the Na-Dené (Athabaskan), Algic (including Algonquian), Uto-Aztecan, Iroquoian, Siouan–Catawban, Yok-Utian, Salishan and Yuman phyla, besides many smaller groups and several language isolates. Demonstrating genetic relationships has proved difficult due to the great linguistic diversity present in North America.
The indigenous peoples of North America can be classified as belonging to a number of large cultural areas:
Alaska Natives
Arctic: Eskimo–Aleut
Subarctic: Northern Athabaskan
Western United States
Californian tribes (Northern): Yok-Utian, Pacific Coast Athabaskan, Coast Miwok, Yurok, Palaihnihan, Chumashan, Uto-Aztecan
Plateau tribes: Interior Salish, Plateau Penutian
Great Basin tribes: Uto-Aztecan
Pacific Northwest Coast: Pacific Coast Athabaskan, Coast Salish
Southwestern tribes: Uto-Aztecan, Yuman, Southern Athabaskan
Central United States
Plains Indians: Siouan, Plains Algonquian, Southern Athabaskan
Eastern United States
Northeastern Woodlands tribes: Iroquoian, Central Algonquian, Eastern Algonquian
Southeastern tribes: Muskogean, Siouan, Catawban, Iroquoian
Of the surviving languages, Uto-Aztecan has the most speakers (1.95 million) if the languages in Mexico are considered (mostly due to 1.5 million speakers of Nahuatl); Nadene comes in second with approximately 180,200 speakers (148,500 of these are speakers of Navajo). Na-Dené and Algic have the widest geographic distributions: Algic currently spans from northeastern Canada across much of the continent down to northeastern Mexico (due to later migrations of the Kickapoo) with two outliers in California (Yurok and Wiyot); Na-Dené spans from Alaska and western Canada through Washington, Oregon, and California to the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico (with one outlier in the Plains). Another area of considerable diversity appears to have been the Southeast; however, many of these languages became extinct from European contact and as a result they are, for the most part, absent from the historical record."
I am certain that the South American Indians, like the Inca, were/are an entirely different ethnic group from those in North America.
Complex indeed! Thanks Bunwat, I think we had better get back on topic or Lynn will be slapping our wrists!
This is an article on what Indians want to be called. It is published by a Cherokee publication:http://www.allthingscherokee.com/arti...
I liked the reasoning the author gives for not using the term 'Native American.'
MadgeUK wrote: "Complex indeed! Thanks Bunwat, I think we had better get back on topic or Lynn will be slapping our wrists!"Certainly not. :-) As BunWat said, definitely relevant.
MadgeUK wrote: "I appreciate all those factors Bunwat and have always been sympathetic to Indian culture and history but what about DNA? Doesn't that determine ethnicity these days?"It doesn't for current peoples because of political issues. Some tribes are adamantly against DNA testing, while some don't mind.
But DNA studies do help when trying to determine the *history* of native peoples. Current DNA research reveals a much more varied and mobile history, especially for native cultures in the Eastern United States. There are yDNA and mtDNA haplogroups that are specific to native peoples in the Americas, but those same haplogroups also appear in unexpected places, revealing complex migration patterns that blow the simple Bering Strait model away. And all of this information is being discovered *right now* as more and more people participate in DNA studies for genealogy. It's very exciting!
The same things are happening in Britain, by the way. One place to begin research is with the National Geographic Genographic Project:
https://genographic.nationalgeographi...
I have put my response on the Background thread as Bunwat suggested. Perhaps we can carry on with our Indian/DNA stuff there unless it directly relates to Part II.
CD starts Part II with good things to say about the Mormons and Brigham Young. They had reached the base of the hill by this time, and were surrounded by crowds of the pilgrims -- pale-faced meek-looking women, strong laughing children, and anxious earnest-eyed men...Beside the driver there sat a man who could not have been more than thirty years of age, but whose massive head and resolute expression marked him as a leader......This is not the place to commemorate the trials and privations endured by the immigrant Mormons before they came to their final haven. From the shores of the Mississippi to the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains they had struggled on with a constancy almost unparalleled in history. The savage man, and the savage beast, hunger, thirst, fatigue, and disease -- every impediment which Nature could place in the way, had all been overcome with Anglo-Saxon tenacity. Young speedily proved himself to be a skilful administrator as well as a resolute chief...'
The main criticism, later on, seems to be about Mormon marriage customs because we learn in the next chapter that (1) there is no choice for the woman and (2) men take more than one wife. John Ferrier and Lucy are otherwise described as having made a good life amongst the Mormons and he had been treated generously but in Chapter 3 we learn:-
He had always determined, deep down in his resolute heart, that nothing would ever induce him to allow his daughter to wed a Mormon. Such a marriage he regarded as no marriage at all, but as a shame and a disgrace. Whatever he might think of the Mormon doctrines, upon that one point he was inflexible. He had to seal his mouth on the subject, however, for to express an unorthodox opinion was a dangerous matter in those days in the Land of the Saints. Yes, a dangerous matter - so dangerous that even the most saintly dared only whisper their religious opinions with bated breath, lest something which fell from their lips might be misconstrued, and bring down a swift retribution upon them. The victims of persecution had now turned persecutors on their own account, and persecutors of the most terrible description. Not the Inquisition of Seville, nor the German Vehm-gericht, nor the Secret Societies of Italy, were ever able to put a more formidable machinery in motion than that which cast a cloud over the State of Utah.'
We learn that 'the supply of adult women was running short, and polygamy without a female population on which to draw was a barren doctrine indeed. Strange rumours began to be bandied about - rumours of murdered immigrants and rifled camps in regions where Indians had never been seen. Fresh women appeared in the harems of the Elders - women who pined and wept, and bore upon their faces the traces of an unextinguishable horror. Belated wanderers upon the mountains spoke of gangs of armed men, masked, stealthy, and noiseless, who flitted by them in the darkness...'
One can imagine this happening in such circumstances and today it is happening in China where the one-child policy is predicted to lead to 24 million Chinese men of marrying age finding themselves lacking wives in 2020.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-n...
This situation could also lead to polyandry, which is already practised in nearby Tibet:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandr...
And I guess that our girl great-grandchildren could be marrying Chinese men who have emigrated to find brides:).
Don't want folks tothink that I am changing the subject - feelfree to continue on. But there were a couple other things:First, do we see a formula developing?
-Starts off with info on John and Sherlock.
- Case set out.
- Sherlock looks for clues.
- Police offer up their (incorrect) theories.
- Sherlock says he knows the big picture but has to fill in the details.
- Sherlock tests out ways to find the missing details.
- Watson gives the reader the backstory.
- Sherlock tells Watson how he cracked the case.
Do you agree? Did I miss anything?
Lucy Ferrier - part of the mythic west or keeper of the mainstream Christian faith? Something else? Both?Some of these things are complicated by the fact that Doyle is British, and I don't expect him to portray Americans in the same way Americans would portray themselves.
But women in the 1800s were considered to be the moral keepers of American principles. Not equal to men but better morally so again looked to to keep the men and country on the right moral paths. Do we see that here?
But are these folk all Americans? Do we know what nationality John and Lucy are? I thought they might be English.
MadgeUK wrote: "But are these folk all Americans? Do we know what nationality John and Lucy are? I thought they might be English."Good question. I may have missed something but I thought they were Americans. Of course, they are probably immigrants, but to me, once an immigrant lands here, they automatically become Americans.
Lynnm wrote: "But women in the 1800s were considered to be the moral keepers of American principles. Not equal to men but better morally so again looked to to keep the men and country on the right moral paths. Do we see that here? "I believe this was the same in Britain, as well? Probably with a slightly different emphasis, though.
Yes, the Angel on the Hearth operated on both sides of the Pond:).
I'm late to the party, but just a note of clarification about Kipling's poem White Man's Burden.Kipling wrote it after the Spanish American War. It was written to the US government and intended for an American audience He was urging the US to colonize the Philippines just like the British had done in India and South Africa. This info is in "After the Victorians" by A.N. Wilson.
Of course, the term has taken on a much broader meaning in the last century.
Lynnm wrote: "Don't want folks tothink that I am changing the subject - feelfree to continue on. But there were a couple other things:First, do we see a formula developing?
-Starts off with info on John and ..."
Yes, very correct LynnM. This is the standard formula for virtually every story Doyle wrote.
It seems like every police procedural/ detective television show ever aired borrows Doyle's method.
The only other author I can think of that had this much influence on Hollywood is Jane Austen. Every romantic comedy is just Pride and Prejudice told and re-told.
MadgeUK wrote: "Yes, the Angel on the Hearth operated on both sides of the Pond:)."I wonder how that idea came about. We went from the conduct manuals of the 1600s and 1700s that said that women shouldn't be trusted, and therefore s/b chaste, silent and obedient to women as protectors of their nation's moral principles. How did we get from one to another?
Amanda wrote: "I'm late to the party, but just a note of clarification about Kipling's poem White Man's Burden.Kipling wrote it after the Spanish American War. It was written to the US government and intended f..."
True. What is also interesting is what President McKinley said to I think it was a Methodist conference about why he decided to have the U.S. go into the Phillippines. Ties.into the same themes as Kipling. And ties into what we've said about the link between Christianity and democracy. I would put up a link but I'm working on my tablet this week and can't copy and paste.
True. And that is of course why many oppressed groups weren't allowed to be educated or to write. But as soon as they were allowed those things, they wrote their own stories.
And sometimes you havecompeting histories, depending on what side you are on. I'm sure that the American Revolution is called something quite different in the UK - and the particulars as well. :-)