The article "Universal Design in the Community Planning" by the Center for Universal Design examines new urbanist approaches to building residences and communities that presents challenges for universal design. Current trends including mixed-used developments that perpetuate daily movement act as a hindrance for universal designs that are meant to include all demographics. The article also discusses smart growth which directly addresses problems that exist within car-dependent populations. Smart growth encourages non-vehicular transportation within communities which can help senior citizens and persons with disabilities when transporting. This relates to Lid's "Implementing Universal Design in a Norwegian Context" because both articles examined how modern building trends hinder universal design and discriminate against people with disabilities. Both articles bring up implementations that can help the disabled, but the proposal's differ. The Center for Universal Design desires for cities to incorporate "smart growth" which allows for people with disabilities to easily transport throughout while Lid encourages a democratic process to occur where the government, city planners, and the people unite to create a better universal design that is all-inclusive.

The article, "Implementing Universal Design in a Norwegian Context" by Inger Marie Lid discusses how urban public areas fail to provide accommodations within public design to include persons with disabilities. In particular, Lid examined the city of Oslo, Norway, where she lives. Lid discovered that politicians, urban planners, and the people need to establish a democratic relationship when designing public areas. Additionally, urban areas represent the public which should represent diverse demographics. Disabled people need to be included in this diversity in order to be included in urban design. Ultimately, disability advocate groups need to gain more power while politicians and city planners need to become more aware of disability perception in order to better resolve the issues that exist within architecture and public exclusion. Lid is a supporter of universal design and explores its positive implications throughout her study of Oslo's design.

When listening to the rhetoric of politicians, you never hear them mention or emphasis accessibility for wheel chair users. Do they not care to put this in their agenda or do they believe this is not a concern to society? It would be interesting to see a moderator ask questions regarding such to the presidential candidates in order to bring this conflict to the forefront of the nation, even though urban design is designated for more local governments.

This also related to Ryan Gravel's thesis of the Beltline. Gravel yearned to make Atlanta a more "walk-able city" which would in turn make Atlanta more desirable. In present-day, the Atlanta Beltline acts as a perfect example of a built environment that encourages walking and pedestrian comfort. With pedestrian-friendly paths for walking and biking, the surrounding Beltline communities have flourished just by the inclusion of a grandiose sidewalk. This concrete structure has promoted walking and the community has responded. Now, Atlanta residents with access to the Beltline utilize its path and enjoy themselves. Gravel's vision was revolutionary for revitalizing pedestrian comfort and Atlanta's walkability. ! !

This whole paper contradicted this thought. More so, urban public places can act like strong predators of inequality which diminishes a particular demographics' dignity. Personally, I believe Lid's argument and research was successful to expose the need to include the disabled within urban design and how our society can go about this action. Hopefully, her examination of Oslo, Norway can convert to Atlanta, Georgia with ease.

So we need to meet in the middle. Disability advocate groups need to carry more influence while politicians and urban planners need to have a more knowledgeable "disability perspective." If both roles execute such, then future urban developments will be more inclusive for persons with disabilities. Until then, we can unfortunately expect the same exclusion that has been perpetuated by society, politics, and design.

Lid acknowledges her counterargument in this quote. It is impractical to satisfy the entire demographics wants into a single design.. So which wants should we prioritize? Are some people's wishes inherently better than others in the mind of the government and city planners? Regardless, compromises must be made to satisfy people's desires and include everyone to a certain degree.

Urban cities have this assumption that a diverse population resides within its limits. When I think of the city Atlanta, there really isn't a majority. Instead, an agglomeration of various cultures and minorities, which was one of the primary reasons I wanted to move to Atlanta and attend Georgia State University. Garland-Thompson brings up a fabulous point. Urban areas represent diversity and the architecture should mirror such diversity. Therefore, if disabled people are in the diverse population, then they should be included in urban public areas.

In architecture, more knowledge results in more universality. More knowledge in any case is better than ignorance. We must educate politicians, city planners, and civilians to prevent ignorance from determining the city's makeup.

So politicians would rather have ineffective buildings that they recognize derived from their wrong choices, but don't want to take the measure to solve their faulty decisions due to the expensives that entail form reconstruction..? That sounds corrupt and is at the expense of the city's citizens.

Prior to this article, I would have never noticed such a hindrance. Instead, I would have appreciated the cobblestone for its beauty. but this beautiful structure can cause pain for citizens that require wheelchair access. It is interesting how one man's praise can also act as another man's hindrance.

This seems to be the case in American cities. American capitalism has turned our economy into a greedy, self-interested, predatory system. Businesses don't seem to be concerned with the well-being of the public. Instead, they only seem to regard their profit. As a result, architectural companies do not value constructing universal designs to encompass everyone; they build with the main intention of making money.

This coincides with a previous annotation I made about envisioning "city people." If individuals include persons of disability within their perception of the city, then recognition exists... My fear is that too many people don't envision such inclusion, and therefore, the disabled already aren't equal to their counterparts through initial awareness. How can we change perception? What measures need to be taken to consider all people?

Can this implementation proposed by Lid be translated successfully into American government and society? I understand the author is examining the city of Oslo in Norway. So are these countries to different in every aspect to be equated in city planning?

Participatory planning can help city planning become more democratic to include its citizens. Which in theory sounds amazing to have individual feedback that would influence city construction, but what if the people in the city are discriminatory? This could, in turn, negatively impact the inclusion of individuals. For instance city planners and citizens may resent homeless people sleeping on public benches. Therefore, the city implements new benches that make it uncomfortable for someone to rest upon it. This change excludes the homeless by the democratic planning process. Of course, there are benefits, which Lid explains, but there's always a disadvantage, especially with the hateful people that we have in the United States today.

This makes me wonder if as a whole, the United States doesn't respect people with disabilities. Do disabled people feel this way? I could only imagine because there doesn't seem to be plentiful implementations to benefit them. Feeling isolated by society, government, and architecture must diminish their self-respect and self-worth which is terribly sad.

Nussbaum's quote claiming that all humans are "mortal, decaying bodies" almost objectifies humans. This "we are become decrepit and then eventually die" attitude conveys a negative outlook on mortality. Regardless, this notion qualifies individuals through varying degrees of disabilities which I believe is true, just like Max had stated. Whether physically, mentally, and/or emotionally, every individual becomes depreciated to an extent, and therefore measures in architecture must coincide with these impairments.

Was the CRPD revolutionary to the world? Was it the first, groundbreaking declaration that demanded inclusion and protection of persons with disabilities? I would hope legislation already existed in the United States that helps the disabled... but do our lawmakers value this?

This quote sounds similar to the Bill of Rights or John Locke's philosophies on natural rights, which elevates Lid's rhetoric because such writings are extolled within United States' society. It is a basic right to have an equal status within citizens which parallels with the Bill of Rights and natural rights.

As Max had provided context to the United Nation's CRPD, Lid parallels this mandate throughout her argument, and therefore it is important to understand the declaration's vision. Also, the United Nations had created rights designated for persons with disabilities, thus, the world perceives the disabled as a demographic who are entitled to equal rights; those countries in the UN understand the inequality of disabled people and their need for mandates that provide opportunities designated for them. At least on a world-wide level, this discrimination is seen as an issue.

Interesting how urban design can segregate a certain population, whether intentional or not, even though its access is deemed as "open for everyone." Ironically, it does just the opposite for individuals who require additional accessibility; the city isolates them from equal consumption.

This notion is mentioned in Ryan Gravel's Where We Want to Live. Urban cities function as a location where people interact with people due to close proximity. Contrastingly, in more suburban cities, people don't closely interact like the urban population due to their sprawl. The Atlanta Beltline became a proposal to perpetuate citizen interaction.

By being present to governmental bodies, groups can bring forth their issues so that the government is forced to deal with their issues. This strategy is exhibited by many well-known protest groups such as the Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter, LGTBQ protesters, etc.

I agree with the claims made by the interviewees. Most people ignore or don't even regard the integration of disabled individuals within cities.Personally, it hasn't crossed my mind. When one envisions the busy life of the city and the people within the city, one doesn't think of disabled people and the accessibility designed for them. Therefore, because of this disregard, these individuals yearn to feel present within the urban environment. They want to feel incorporated, and they should be.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/caranewlon/2014/07/31/the-college-amenities-arms-race/#cbbda7d1f3cc In "The College Amenities Arms Race" by Cara Newlon, the article discusses the crazy expenditures that colleges have been construction which are purely for student entertainment. These constructions, ranging from movie theaters to lazy rivers, have caused increasing tuition from students which could lead to backlash from lower income students that don't value these facilities as a need and students that don't perceive the facilities to have any personal use. Having the most innovative and entertaining amenities has evolved into an unintentional competition between universities. Most notably, in 2006, colleges spent upwards of fifteen billion dollars on construction projects. Newlon also suggests that adding desirable amenities can be beneficial towards "less-selective" schools because it'll grow their number of applicants and in turn, drive down their acceptance rates. Ultimately, these college expenditures are a prioritized business and are treated as such for college planning. Whether they're necessary or not continues to be on the forefront of debate. In relation to "Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces" by Scholl and Gulwadi, this article makes me question if natural environment settings are even necessary for student populations. These green-spaces may just be another unneeded "entertainment facility" that drives up expensives for college. Personally, I do not want to pay an excessive amount for a development that isn't imperative to my studies. Perhaps, if it is evident that students' performances benefit from the facility and it exceeds the cost of the construction, then natural landscapes could be useful to student life. Now, I feel very conflicted about the development of greenery in college campuses. On one hand, I strongly believe I will utilize it and benefit from its involuntary attention. On the contrary, I am honestly not willing and able to pay for its construction.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/gfhf45fim/texas-tech-university/#1729882d1b07 This is a photograph of a massive water park/leisure pool located at Texas Tech University. This appears more as a vacation resort than a college campus. If Georgia State tried to implement a structure similar to this in their campus, then I would totally be against the action because its not needed for everyday student life. I don't value a pool like I value convention learning space.

In regards to Georgia State, I definitely do not value the entirety of campus as "learning space." I feel as though a limited amount of designated areas have that purpose. Places like the honors college lab, the commons community rooms, the library all exemplify learning spaces, though the landscape of the campus does not. I wish I felt comfortable to productively study anywhere on campus, but that is not the current situation. If in the future, Georgia State values this notion of integrated natural environments, then I will accept the entire campus as an open space for student learning. Hopefully, someone, maybe an individual like me or a grassroots movement, can make this project happen.

Basically, this serves as my sole interaction with nature at Georgia State which means I engage in incidental attention during these transactions. I didn't know this classification previously. I do wish Georgia State incorporated more intentional natural landscapes. Personally, I feel as though I would really benefit from such developments. I do recognize with the limited space that Georgia State owns however, it could be rather difficult to construct. Regardless, urban areas need more nature, which is noted immensely with GSU. I understand adding nature to cities may act counter-intuitive of the word urban, but nonetheless it would make the city more pleasing and a better environment for students.

To further their argument, Scholl and Gulwadi display a "student-nature interactions in campus" chart which explores the different nature typologies and examines the use of attentive interactions (i.e incidental, indirect, involuntary, etc.) that are employed in each setting. This use of evidence is an incredible way to illustrate the various degrees of attention used in different settings. The format of the chart is extremely helpful to differentiate the environments that have engaging interactions which stimulate the students' learning. For visual learners, this is especially helpful. Additionally, they explain the definition of the typologies, which narrows the confusion of the varying settings. Though they have a lack of scientific research, this chart is quite informative and compelling to their argument.

Scholl and Gulwadi acknowledge their lack of research, which is quite redeeming for the authors. Now I feel sympathetic for judging their analysis so cruelly. I suppose if they rewrite this proposal in 5-10 years, then their persuasion would exceed its current status due to this relatively new research domain. I would love to read studies that further this idea if any research on this topic accumulates in the future.

Involuntary attention leads to benefits such as performance, gratification, and potentially regulation of emotions solely due to their "inherently intriguing" and "replenishing" nature? I feel as though their claims on the advantages of involuntary attention is lacking due to their inability to draw from scientific analysis and psychological studies. It's a shame because I am truly in support of college campuses instituting natural environments into their landscape.

Nature, in its actual form, is quite ambiguous. With that notion, if colleges were to implement "natural environments," this could differ from one university to the next depending on their individual interpretation of nature. One might perceive nature as the planting of multiple trees, while one might view it as incorporating a natural element within a landscape, like a park in an urban area. It'll be interesting to see if these different interpretations cause conflict if the implementation of natural environments ever becomes mandated for public universities.

Similarly, the Atlanta Beltline project which was proposed by Ryan Gravel was created by a grass-roots movement. Both the preservation of nature in some college campuses during the 1970's and the Beltline exhibit the immense influence that grass-roots movements can attain.

A similar trend happened to the city of Atlanta during the 90's and the early 2000's. Atlanta widened its roads and created more parking lots designated for the increasing amounts of vehicles. These constructions ultimately resulted in less areas of natural open space, which drove out pedestrians. College planning has a mirrored reality to this. Colleges accommodated for the large student body that owned vehicles, which in turn lessened the space for nature. Unfortunately, the expansion of nature was the opportunity cost in this situation.

I find this comical because the authors claim that college founders frown upon city atmospheres due to their "distraction." Personally, the primary reason for me deciding to further my education at Georgia State was due to the urban environment. This was ideal for me and my educational preferences. This fallacy doesn't apply to everyone individuals' education wants and needs. To hear that colleges view the lifestyles of cities as "distractions" is completely absurd. These so-called "distractions" are actually opportunities for cultural, politically, social, economic, and personal growth. If anything, traditional college campuses can present the same distractions. The institutions still have a social scene which can detract the students from their studies. This can happen anywhere- rural or urban. Since most colleges are in rural "college towns," it parallels the negativity surrounding urban campuses.

This notion blatantly contrasts to Georgia State University. As a campus we are evidently built in an urban location and embody the city of Atlanta, which provides a completely different dynamic than traditional rural college campuses. Can the urban aspect of Georgia State result in the integration of natural space? Does our location disallow such green-space because of its confinement? Or do we have to find unconventional manners to construct natural environments (i.e a rooftop greenery)?

These are the fundamental pieces of evidence that Scholl and Gulwadi will examine to support their case that natural environments help student learning. They only present two different concepts, which is quite limited. In order to successfully prove their proposal, I suppose they will have to go intensely in-depth to convey each idea.

So instead of utilizing studies, the authors will incorporate the examination of college landscapes and use it to develop their argument. This mechanism is valid, but I still feel as though the inclusion of some scientific research would be immensely effective. Scholl and Gulwadi have to make sure that their reasoning strengthens their argument exponentially.

So does this completely demolish any sort of argument that they have? Scholl and Gulwadi are basically stating that currently no pertinent studies correlate cognitive functioning with natural open spaces currently. This is a primary claim of their proposition to include natural environments into college campuses, yet they have no evidence to prove that advantageous effects exist... So now, it leads me to believe that their argument is predominately based on logic and reasoning instead of scientific studies.

I can agree with this claim from various personal experiences. Nowadays, with my increasing dependence on modern technology and social medias, I become consumed by this technology and primarily focus my attention on my phone, laptop, television, etc., as opposed solely focusing on my schoolwork. Though I am still able to complete my school assignments while engaging in my technologies, the multitasking could result in less attentive work, which could ultimately affect the its quality in a negative manner.

I would imagine the same could be concluded about working adults who have jobs that exhaust the mind. After a nine to five job filled with direct attention that requires the mind to be fully intact, a business man or engineer or etc. could have immense attentional fatigue, not just the college demographic. I know companies like Google provide green-spaces for their employees as an outlet for mental, physically, and spiritual relief. Therefore, the authors' article could also apply to an older demographic and their demanding occupations.

The authors utilize the word "catalyst" which makes it appear that open spaces such as natural environments have this intense power to stimulate students' learning. Is this so? The authors should include studies that parallel this concept. If so, does nature improve a student's ability to produce schoolwork at a low or high degree? Is the degree even noticeable?

Therefore, according to Radloff's calculations, students have ample amount of time outside the classroom. Because of this freedom to engage in a learning environment apart from classes, students can seek environments such as green-spaces to complete school assignments. Basically, the authors use Radloff's data to stress that classroom environment is not the primary environment in which students go about learning which may go against the majority's assumption. Instead, alternative places are used more heavily for learning communities. However, It would be interesting to examine Radloff's study where he forms his conclusion that "one fifth of a student's time is spent in the classroom." I would think that this varies from student to student depending on the amount of credit hours that one is enrolled in and their dedication towards the pursuit of education.

Here lies the thesis of Scholl and Gulwadi; the authors are in support of providing natural environment accommodations in university landscapes in order to benefit students learning. Is there a large demographic of people that oppose of this proposition? If so, what is their reasoning?

I do not understand why Scholl and Gulwadi provided factual statistics to prove their claim that the University system in America is evolving throughout the twenty-first century, yet they failed to provide satisfactory research on their primary claim about categories of attention and their cognitive effects. Since their main idea in this article references that nature presents involuntary attention which alleviates the strain of direct attention, why did n't they involve statistics to prove their statements on the psychological benefits of natural enviroments?

In "Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces" by Scholl and Gulwadi, the article discusses the implementations of natural environments in college campuses. Entire university campuses need to provide holistic learning spaces for their students. A well-designed landscape, will allow for prosperous learning, personal growth, productivity, and mental relaxation. Furthermore, Scholl and Gulwadi discusses different types of attention including direct and involuntary. These categories affect student's effectiveness when studying. The incorporation of involuntary attention provided by nature helps alleviate the stress that course work puts on direct attention. Therefore, a advantageous relationship exists between schoolwork and green-space. Ultimately, nature presents cognitive benefits that allow students with striving resources for learning and community interaction. This dynamic should be instituted in university campuses throughout.

In "Implementing Universal Design in a Norwegian Context: Balancing Core Values and Practical Priories" by Inger, the stress of urban planning based on ease of access and functionality for all disabilities is discussed in particular with college campuses. The main claims from the article are followed: 1) Be inclusive. A person's right to the city is all-encompassing. No discrimination. 2) One can tell a lot about the city's regard for human rights through the implementation of accessibility. If there is little accessibility for disabled, the city doesn't regard them as priorities. 3) There should be user involvement in the political process. With universality, come aspects of democratic decision making. The more the people's opinions are involved in the development, the less resentment will occur when the structure has been intertwined within the city. Citizens need to act as representatives to inform politicians because citizens are users of public space.

I also find it unbelievable that archaeologists are able to determine precise dates for renovations and buildings. The archaeologists noted that James Burr's house was constructed in two different phases with each phase about thirty years apart from the other. The first phase of construction was likely by Burr's grandfather. The second phase was completed by Burr himself when he added a cellar. Centuries later, archaeologists somehow dated the renovations that occurred on the buildings. This ability nutures the admiration I have for individuals in that profession.

Why did the land owned by four men go enlisted as Howe's acreage? Was Howe deemed as more important than his counterparts who also lived in the New Guinea community? Additionally, the town's authorization included the information that the land was formerly occupied by a "man of color" which demonstrates the nation's emphasize on race as a social construct and hierarchy. In realty, European settlers probably did not desire to live in a settlement that was previously owned by an African American. Therefore, under the house's description, the potential buyers were informed if the land was once owned by a "man of color."

Personally, I have never utilized oral history into any of my research. Therefore, I find it immensely interesting that a key piece of evidence in the archaeological research of Burr's home was that of oral history regarding the cellar. What are the advantages and disadvantages of oral sources?

By the time of Howe's death, he had acquired more valuables that equated to $61.82 and 1/2. Though, still very few in actual value, the growth of his net value illustrates that during his later life, Howe was able to grow and sustain his belongings. Maybe the African American community that he lived on helped to further his revenue...

It is unfortunate that the only known records kept of Prince Goodwin before his service in the army was that he served as a slave by Dr. William Thomas and his son, Joshua Thomas. No birth certificates - just his slave contract. The single documentation of his servitude defined Goodwin, until archaeology was implemented in this study and discovered his life story.

Howe's total value when asking to receive government pension was $27. This is crazy to even fathom because $27 nowadays will never be enough to survive on. Of course, inflation and the value of a dollar was immensely different in the 1800's, but the slim value of his belongings demonstrate how Howe owned a small amount of items.

My previous question was answered. The land has been reserved for historical landmark purposes. In fact, after doing research, there is a Parting Ways cemetery that exists in Massachusetts which acts as a historical landmark for the Parting Ways community.

This quote about Howe's race was in a paragraph all by itself - the sole sentence in the entire paragraph, thus emphasizing the significance of Howe's race. Additionally, in this brief biography, the author mentions he served in the army. Because of the perception of servicemen during this time period, readers might assume Howe to be of European decent, though the author promptly stops this assumption by stating the shocking fact of Howe's race.

After Howe's service, the opportunities for him to succeed and make a decent living were slim even though he was free. The government did very little to help accommodate for Howe. Nowadays, the government is willing and able to help those who have served in our military which contrasts to the 1800's. Was it because of Howe's race that he did not receive aid or was it because the government solely did little to help?

Is government pension back in the 1800's similar to government aid like medicaid, medicare, food stamps, etc. nowadays? I had no idea that the 1800's instituted welfare programs like modern day.

Though, most students do not learn about Howe in history curriculum, it does not mean Howe does not have any historical impact in America. The introduction of Howe makes it appear that the readers have no information regarding him, though once we continue reading, it is incredible how much you can determine about an individual based off archives and archaeological data. Solely based off fact, readers can learn the majority of Howe's lifetime, even though at the beginning of this passage, he is unfamiliar territory.

In the article "America must equalize access home-ownership and its wealth opportunities" by Charlene Crowell, Crowell discusses the lack of opportunities for individuals and families who struggle financially to receive equal and accessible housing that permeates financial growth. The government practices discriminatory policies that enables minority races to build any sort of wealth and access financial aid (i.e. loans) to aid in mortgage payments. There exists a connection between this article and Parting Ways in regards to minority communities. In particular, Crowell states "new research by the Center for Responsible Lending, highlights how post-housing crisis lending trends perpetuate racial wealth gaps and housing segregation" (Crowell). Essentially, this modern dilemma depicts the housing status back in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Communities thrived in the 1700's when the individuals that owned land were wealthy and Caucasian. Contrastingly, in Parting Ways, the four African American men were segregated in Plymouth and lived in intense poverty, just like the Latinos and Blacks in present day America. Furthermore, "these practices erect yet another barrier to wealth creation for these communities" (Crowell). Ultimately, because of this racial bias, African American communities, like those of Parting Ways, were unable to thrive financially and remained separate from the white colonized settlements.

Website Credit:

Crusader. “America Must Equalize Access to Homeownership and Its Wealth Opportunities.” Gary/Chicago Crusader. N.p., 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.

Why would the wealthy people of Plymouth give the black men very nice pottery? Were racial tensions not as prevalent in Parting Ways and Plymouth? I have this fallacy where I believe that all whites hated African Americans during this era, though that may not be the case. Of course, racial tensions were high and Africans were treated as subordinate, but that hateful mindset does not apply to all Caucasians.

Somehow, jars from the West Indies made their way to Parting Ways. This difference in location is incredible. Who gave the men these jar? How did they transport to America? Did the men use it for the same purpose as those who used these jars in the West Indies (for tamarind)?

This is exactly the question I have been pondering throughout the piece. Because of their African decent, did the men want to bring parts of their culture over to the community of New Guinea or did they want to expel their heritage from the ethnocentric European settlers?

What are the differences between West African and Anglo-American architecture? Stylistically, how did they compare to one another?

Burr's home had a chimney while American houses of the same period did not utilize chimneys.. If Burr's chimney was indeed a properly functioning chimney, then his building's architecture was beyond the time of other American homes. For a financially struggling African American, owning a chimney was a more modern feature that other European homes did not attain.

The article displays a visual illustrating a traditional shotgun design, similar to Burr's house. In reference to shotgun houses, I took a human geography course where I had to locate traditional shotgun houses within my hometown. Because of the assignment, I became quite knowledgeable on that particular structure. Never did I think that shotgun structures would be utilized again in another course, but I am thankful that it arose in this subject!

The houses at Parting Ways may not be intentionally shotgun houses due to their scarce materials and impoverish lifestyle. With limited resources and capital, the men built houses that fit within their budget which so happened to be buildings that resembled those of a shotgun structure. Contrastingly, because of Burr's African background, he could have utilized the African American architectural form when constructing his home. Was there an intention for shotgun houses due to ethnic influences or was it pure coincidence under the scare circumstances?

Instinctively, people with common characteristics, ideas, and beliefs tend to accumulate together to form a sense of a community. I believe this idea resonates with the four men in Parting Ways more so than the idea that the placement of houses reflected their shared "spirit." It seems more probable that their local government decided the placement of their houses and their mutual cultural identities made their community and households similar.

The feet bones that remained from cows tell us about the nourishment and cuisine of Anglo-Americans. At this time, cow feet were of little value to most inhabitants, but they still could act as a source of food, especially to those who are desperate for survival. Maybe, the four men had a particularly preference in cuisine that utilized cow feet as opposed to Anglo-American cuisine... or maybe the four men were so impoverished that they could only utilize the undervalued meat because of their limited income.

This is one of the first times that this article discusses the abnormality of these four men's freedom. I find it quite interesting that these four men were not under the institution of slavery because slavery was unfortunately so common for African Americans during this time period. I do understand that because of their service in the national army, they were able to get out of their contract of slavery, but this was not the norm for most Africans in America. However, it is impressive that after numerous years, four men who gained their freedom were able to form a community together based on the foundation of their ethnicity.

On most gravestones, the text is dedicated to shedding light on deceased individuals' lives to the fullest extent. Though on the four men's gravestone, it does attempt to remember the men positively. Inevitably, it exhibits their inferiority through the presence of "four negro slaves" which illustrates the corrupt racial hierarchy that America instituted. The positive attributes about their service and their freedom, in my opinion, are outweighed by the powerful phrase "negro slaves." Hypothetically, if race were not included in the memorial, then individuals during that time period would have viewed the African American soldiers as more admirable and heroic.

What was the importance of pottery during this time period? Was it an elevated piece of art that the upper class yearned to own or was it used practically in households by all classes to store various items? Personally, I believe the African Americans utilized the pottery for everyday tasks (i.e storage), though that does not mean the pottery was not important to their culture. The pottery could hold significant value to family lineage and/or cultural customs. Both practicality and aesthetic could be representative by the pottery's use.

Maybe I depict humans as selfish and evil, but why did the community not disturb the grave offerings? I would assume that certain individuals would steal the objects and use them for their own benefit. Perhaps, the valuables did not get stolen because the community recognized the significance of those gravestone offerings to the deceased and respected them... or perhaps the community saw no value in the items and therefore did not result to theft.

The variations in architectural structure of the African men in Parting Ways could potentially occur because of their difference in location in relation to other Anglo-American communities. Similar to the idea of varying dialects between the same culture, the men's style might have a slight variance because they do not live in close proximity to the majority of Anglo-American culture.

Americans today assume that our nation has been founded and will forever stand as a cultural "melting pot." Contrast to popular belief, this has never been the case. Differing cultures face immense diversity and are not easily accepted to "swim in the so-called melting pot" like those of European decent. I enjoy how the author concludes with an idea that is contrasting to the belief that Americans have been institutionalized since youth. In relation to Parting Ways, I find it incredible that the four men's African heritage remained as the sole backbone of their homes, even after enduring the hardship that slavery and racial tensions in society inflicted upon them. The four men did not perceive America as a melting pot because the colonists did not desire to swim in the same pot as inferiors.

Faulkner makes it appear that the decorations on African American gravestones serve no meaning to white individuals, but symbolize immense significance to other African Americans. Ultimately, whites will never understand. This stands out to me because Caucasians have always been deemed as superior and represented in society, but this African gravestone undoubtedly does not include them and praises the African American instead. With a society that is always praising white culture, it is almost unheard of to own valuables that do not involve Caucasians. Additionally, Faulkner is a white man writing about black culture in this excerpt so I wonder if his conclusion about African gravestones is accurate or is it biased?

Summary: Parting Ways by James Deetz is a scholarly article that highlights an African American community and discovers decades worth of information based on the archaeological examination of the homes in Parting Ways. The article focuses on Cato Howe, Prince Goodwin, Plato Turner, and Quamany. Initially, not much is known about these individuals apart from the fact that they were once slaves and then were granted their freedom after service in the army. Though on the surface, not much can be inferred about each individuals' life, after immense scrutiny of the architecture of their community, their life stories can be unraveled and praised. Deetz demonstrates the importance of utilizing archaeology in telling the history of the undocumented and potentially forgotten.

This is a photo of the gravestone that currently lies in the Parting Ways cemetery. Before finding images of the cemetery, I read that the gravestone stated "here lies the graves of four negro slaves." Initially, I was in disgust because the four men from Parting Ways are more than just negro slaves. They have an identity that goes beyond such a subservient title. They had family, friends, belongings, property, a unique culture. But to the on-goers looking at their gravestone, they are just a group of slaves. Now, after looking at the reality of the photo, I hope people realize the impact that these men had on colonial society other than the coercive labor that they had to endure.

Image credit:

“Find A Grave - Millions of Cemetery Records and Online Memorials.” N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Parting+Ways+Cemetery/@41.9455999,-70.7351583,549m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89e4bc65b6f4ee29:0xfa5abf5fedc58a0c!8m2!3d41.9455959!4d-70.7329696

To familiarize myself with the geography of Parting Ways and to visualize Deetz's setting, I looked up the location on Google Maps. In present day, the Parting Ways community is commemorated with a cemetery that honors the individuals who had once lived there. Parting Ways is located in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Too my surprise (mainly because I'm ignorant about United State's geography), I discovered that the city of Plymouth lies right next to Plymouth bay! After this discovery, it makes sense that the colony would be located near a coastline due to the sail-ships that transported individuals from Europe to the Americas via the Atlantic.

Website Credit:

“Parting Ways Cemetery.” Parting Ways Cemetery. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.

This is an image of the Turner-Burr house which was structurally different from most vernacular houses of the nineteenth century. In my opinion, the house reminds me of a classic one-story shotgun style home because of the structure's long and narrow frame. Shotgun houses originate from African influences which could be a coincidence or it could be intentional due to the African Americans living in the community. Additionally, for such a small house, there were plenty of windows that acted as a primary light source. Since electricity was not accessible during this time, it makes sense that the building had numerous windows; it was a necessity.

Image Credit:

“parting5.jpg (JPEG Image, 400 × 246 Pixels).” N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.

I find it awe-inspiring that despite racial inferiority and poverty, the African men were able to live a distinct ethnic lifestyle in Parting Ways where they developed their own unique culture.