Mary says I'm turning Americanist....

A difference in reading...

Is it just me, or did Starr really hit his stride in chapters two and three?  I feel terrible for judging him as "dry" after reading the introduction.  I found myself enjoying and chapter two immensely-- annotating the text, thinking of future paper topics, turning pages without realizing the distance covered-- all the markers for genuine interest and discovery in reading.  I even found myself getting huffy about the continual distractions from the reading instead of delighting in them (who knew that a man shaving in the next room could be so irritating?  Is it necessary to turn the water on and off so many times?  And full blast at that?).  I tried to blame Starr, thinking his humor wasn't as strong in the intro and Chapter One, or that his way of giving me an overview was dull, but really, I was hooked on these chapters because of what I already knew about American history coupled with new information.  Learning more about Benjamin Franklin in a setting I can relate to as a writer and reader of articles interested me, as did reading about the Quakers role in literature suppression, and the side notes about Pennsylvania German papers (my family is Pennsylvania Dutch and Mennonites) because I have some basis for situating the new information in relation to my personal experience.  Ta Da!  So I have determined I am no more evolved than the basic readers-- if it interests me, I will read it more carefully, and the things that interest me somehow have to do with me.  But I'm not crossing over from British to American focus-- I simply am American and that is enough of a connection to raise Starr in my estimation.

What connecting to readings can do for us:

Chapter Two "New Foundations" discusses the various filters through which American colonists heard about the world.  It begins with the English filter as books and news came from London.  Later, we get the filters of interest as the postmaster (Franklin!) chose to mail papers he liked (or published) rather than others.  The filter I find most interesting is the filter of accessibility for the anti-federalists (and others).  The idea that "free press" was limited by accessibility from the very beginning and that it was an issue for discussion in the same way we still battle with the privileged groups having more accessibility to press and education, surprised me.  On one hand, of course this occurred!  But on the other, I had never thought of it in this way, or that our country may have been shaped by those privileged enough to get their views out just as much as our current elections are shaped by candidates who have the wealth and power to advertise on their own behalves.  I wonder what would have been different with a more balanced "free press" or if accessibility had been sanctioned and provided in more than lip service.  And what would have happened if the reading populace had been more aware of the series of changing filters that surrounded them and altered what was available.  Since I always saw the American Revolution as a moment for the underdog to shine, I never considered the further underdog, a group which may have saved us a lot of trouble in more modern times had they been given a voice in the making of the constitution.

On a side note, my Pennsylvania Dutch family prided themselves on education- almost to a level that seemed extreme for the times, so it has been interesting to read about different group's efforts to squelch literacy and free speech.  And I will admit that a bit of my interest in this chapter stems from the excitement of watching Britain slowly lose control of the colonists, and considering what lead to this loss of control in the U.S., but not in Canada.  Very interesting thoughts!