Blind Faith in a Conneticut Yankee

The last few chapters in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" have brought up what are in my opinion several interesting points. First there is the matter of how the people of that time period unquestionably believed anything they were told. When the members of the court heard a new messenger come and give them a quest they unquestionably believe it and act on it with without even trying to verify that its was the truth first. When the new magician came to the monastery after the well was repaired and started telling his fortunes, the pilgrims immediately believed him even when a modern person would have tried to question it like the main character did. And when the Hank Morgan and Sandy finally found the castle that they were looking for and it turned out to be a pigsty, Sandy said "And how strange is this marvel, and how awful—that to the one perception it is enchanted and dight in a base and shameful aspect; yet to the perception of the other it is not enchanted, hath suffered no change" even though she must have seen them as pigs too, she insisted and probably actually believed that she still saw the ladies as not being enchanted. What purpose would Twain have for putting this characteristic into the medieval characters. Most likely it was a device to emphasize how people who have been trained since birth in one way of thinking are completely closed to any other views. Even to the point where they will disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes. Since it was implied that the reason they were this was because of the feudal system and the efforts of the nobles to keep the peasants for thinking for themselves, this characteristic was probably also one of Twain's techniques to cast a negative light on the feudal system in favor of some form of republic. Another interesting question is how similar to this the readers of Twain's period or even modern readers are. Of course any reader of either of those periods would probably be offended by any such comparison, and would believe themselves to be beyond that level of blind acceptance, but are there others beliefs or reactions that are so fundamental to them that they don't even realize they're there? And even if there were how would could they be discovered by the modern reader, by definition they would be invisible to the person who had them. So only an outsider would be able to see them, and an outsider probably wouldn't be believed. This is the problem Morgan faces. He even says so in chapter 11 "but as I was the only person in the kingdom afflicted with such impious and criminal opinions, I recognized that it would be good wisdom to keep quiet about this matter, too, if I did not wish to be suddenly shunned and forsaken by everybody as a madman." (On a side note when they brought the pigs to the castle Morgan assumed that Sandy knew the owner of the castle, but as it turned out that was not the case. Was this utter acceptance by the servants and Sandy that a stranger could just walk in and make themselves at home part of their blind acceptance of all things they were told or somethings else. And what happened to the pigs when Morgan and Sandy left?)

A Connecticut Yankee

In the first ten chapters of Twains "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" several things came to my mind. First of all was the practicality of the main character. Most characters in more modern stories would probably have panicked or refused to believe it at least for the first few chapters, but Twain's character thought about it for a few minutes and then began planning how he would take power and rebuild the country to his own liking. So the question is was this a common viewpoint among literary characters of that period. Did they take things in stride no matter what? Or was it even a viewpoint of the actual people of that period. If a factory foreman had been dropped into the past would he have begun doing the same thing or at least trying or would he have gone insane. Or was this simply a literary device used by Twain to keep the story moving. Also another thing that struck was the speed and efficiency with which the main character was able to build up industry. It only took him four years to develop massive factories and even start laying telegraph wires. And at the same time all of this was carried out in secret from the church and the general public. For modern readers this would be the strangest thing about it. The Internet, TV, radio, and a reliable mail system connect us. So we know what’s going on everywhere and even when something is kept secret we know something is going simply because of the lack of information in a world where information is everywhere. And when modern authors write novels set in the medieval world they tend to gloss over the lack of communications in those times. Of course they don't provide them with radios or the Internet, but they always seem to assume that they at least have reliable roads, some form of mail, and at the very least maps. On the other hand Mark Twain gave the characters in his version of King Arthur’s court none of these things. Historically his version is probably more accurate, but why is that? Also the way the main character is treated. He is respected and obeyed because of his power and position, but the viewed as an animal because he has no pedigree. Whereas the main character views everyone else in more or less the opposite view. The question isn't why they are doing this, but how they can accomplish this split in they're thinking. Is this split between the office and the person in it something that was prevalent in Twain's day? Of course it occurs in modern times as well. The most obvious example is the president. As a person he may or may not be liked and respected, but the actual title of president is respected either way. However in this case it’s more of respecting the title and power and being almost repulsed by the person in it. In the modern age the two blend together, but this is almost a total separation of the two. So is this a product of the period in which Twain was living in, or did Twain himself think this way.

Discussing the New South Creed

The article "Engineers and the New South Creed” brought up several questions to my mind. First the concepts of intellectual elitism as opposed to class elitism. I had heard of the idea of a meritocracy before, but this was the first time that I had actually read about people who really believed it and were putting their ideas into action. Or at least the first time I had read about them doing it so explicitly. The question this brought to my mind was how did this actually work out? How much of an impact did this new trend have on modern day society? I would assume that it actually had quite a large impact since people with higher educations generally are treated with more respect than people who only graduated from high school, but I don't know how much of that is due to this particular group of people and how much of it is due to the greater demand for people with higher education as technology becomes more advanced. Another thing that I found interesting was the rhetoric used in these people's arguments. They were much more aggressive than modern speakers. Lyman Hall said that they were declaring war on the North by building the textile department, because it would free them from their dependence on the North. And Robert Thurston’s statements on how certain people were better suited to using their hands and others were better suited to using their minds was also much to the point than what a speaker on the subject would say today even if they had the same views. So what changed this? Was it because the Civil War and the reconstruction period following it were in the recent past or did events later in the 20^th century effect how people thought. Or maybe I’m wrong about this and I just haven’t been reading the works of modern speakers who use this sort of rhetoric. I also found the idea that schools were places for economic growth very interesting. Of course the very fact that the schools educate people who then enter the work force will benefit the economy of the region, but the fact that the schools themselves could produce and sell actual goods is one that I haven’t really thought of before. Eventually schools stopped doing this, but was it because it wasn’t commercially viable or because commercial manufactures didn’t want the competition and forced them to stop. In class we discussed how the sports department brought in money for the school. So is it possible that schools have transformed from providing actual material goods to sell to providing services, other than the actual education process, such as reference materials and entertainment?