Slavery -

I must agree with some of the initial criticism of Oroonoko. As I first read it, I was under the impression that Aphra Behn seemed pro-slavery, or at least not against it. Her ideas seem to contradict each other within the story, but she is not the only one who showed a contradiction in regards to slavery.

John Locke also seemed to ride the fence. In his First Treatise, he appears anti-slavery, but by the second he justifies it. He determines the right circumstances or wording for slavery.

That's the thing about writing about slavery during a time of slavery: it's messy. I feel as though someone could be entirely anti-slavery and still say something that another anti-slavery advocate disagrees with. So, imagine struggling with how to vocalize your ideas on slavery when it is still going on and you've seen it first hand. It isn't going to come across to everyone. 

Where do people draw the line on when having slavery is acceptable? When they're hired? Prisoners of war? When their a different skin tone? So many different lines have been drawn, and sometimes its hard to completely step over the line and draw a whole new one so point blank.

Where Behn's lines may not always be clear, I would say that overall the picture depicted is not a pleasant one. And when you have such an unclean picture people do one of two things: They either distort the picture to make it appear okay (essentially lying to themselves to choose ignorance) or they attempt to change the picture all together and clean it up. I would say that she is ,being a character if that time, dabbling in the distortion to hopefully, all together, clean it up.

It may be easier to draw lines today, look back, and say, "Hey, slavery was sooo bad," but in the moment, things were different. Not everyone was able to approach it like this:

Human Understanding: It's Only Natural

Visit http://anniehorkan.com/difference-natural-law-man-made-law/ for deeper understanding of items listed in picture above.

Blank Slate.


Imagine that for a moment: you're given a sheet a paper and told that you could put anything on that sheet of paper that best tells people who you are. What do you do? You start with the big stuff: significant other, family, friends, job, hobbies, interests, habits, and so on.


What does that sheet of paper say about you? Do we look at what you wrote/drew? How you organized it? How much space you took up?


What if I told you that everything you put is wrong? You aren't those things. You are the blank sheet of paper. Experiences have lead you to believe that you are an accumulation of those things.


When you look at it like that, you are without limitations/confines. Nothing is restricting you to be what it is that you "ought" to be. But how can one be without limitations, it's impossible? You're right.


The idea is that we are born with that bank slate,  and the things that we would put on that sheet of paper do tend to affect us significantly. With that idea in mind, we must also assume that means we learn every thing we know. Everything had to be learned. And how do we learn? By others and through experiences. And it is those experiences that help us to reach human understanding.


Who cares, am I right? Well we all should. Whereas we may think, "oh, that makes sense," prior to someone bringing it to our attention, most of us don't give this much thought. And f we aren't giving it much thought, then we are more likely to be prone to just go with whatever other people are telling us because that's what we do: we learn through others and experience with information.


If no one is telling us we are born with a blank slate and that it is our experiences that shape us, then we believe that we innately have this within us and it is further developed over time. Now, you and I may not take that and try to use it to our advantage, but you know who might? Those in power. Why? Because power hungry people also thirst for more power. Creating this idea that "that's you, this is me, and that's just the way it is because of [insert some bs reason here]," dictated how people viewed life and themselves for a long time.


This guy, John Locke, challenged that. And thanks to that challenge, people began looking beyond religious dictations (or the claiming of), and began looking at individual intellect, thinking, experiences, and the natural way of things: Modern thinking.


Scientific inquisition, political change, and natural law all came to light thanks to his contribution to this moment of enlightenment.

True Colors

Let’s talk about Sir Isaac Newton’s: “A Letter of Mr. Isaac Newton.” Specifically, his concept of colors through the eye of a prism. Though his view on the perception of color due to light refractions/reflection, he was able to conclude that color is simply that: light refractions/reflections. White, being made up of each color put together is not actually white. It is a whole bunch of colors put together: our ROY G. BIV model from elementary school. Now, he would be cool enough if he merely talked about how colors are a refraction of rays and what not, but no, this guy went on and got even deeper. Why? Because that is what you do: you take what you learn and apply it to the world around you. It was not enough for him to say here’s what white is through a prism, here’s what colors are thanks to refraction. It is through his color theory that it is made clear that white is no pure, perfect color, but rather a combination of colors. It is not without color. It is in no way better than any other color. And why would it be? Simply because it refracts/reflects differently than another object? His theory goes beyond the creation of a color wheel, it dabbles in the ongoing debate of race. Based on his findings, one could debate that he, all along, knew that fighting over the color of skin is fighting over light’s reflections. A futile fight, and yet a never ending one that goes round and round.

For more on color watch this video

Now, Bunyan. I grew up hearing about The Pilgrim’s Progress, but Lord knows I never read it. If I had, I can almost guarantee that I would have made the same Christian mistakes I have made (sins? sins). I’m used to being told to be like Jesus, and it’s so easy to mentally say, “Well, that’s impossible, so…,” but with Christian, man, he sets a bar. He acknowledges his sin and goes on his quest successfully. Sounds like the ideal book for all Christians to read.Here’s where I appreciate his story: it went against the norm. It gave people the idea of free-will through free-thinking even in religion. Naturally, someone who is claiming to be God-appointed in his authority would find issue with people beginning to look at religion differently.

Fun fact: This still happens today. People have become accustomed to the traditional church, but people challenge it. What this means is that churches are changing. How? Look at my church for example: I have always attended Mount Zion (how suiting to the story), and it has always had choir sing before/with the congregation. On occasion we would even use hymnals. However, a few years ago they changed it up. Now there are two services: one with a choir and one with a band. The “contemporary” service plays contemporary songs and is more laid back. Why? Because not everyone wants to put on their sunday best anymore just to go to church. After all, it’s a place to come as you are. And now, there are churches who are LGBT+ communities. Again, why? Because people look at tradition and challenge it. And they are able to challenge it because they are not repressed by someone telling them how to think. They think, and therefore interpret things differently. And that is so important.

A church and community where all are welcomed