A Narrative of Complex History

Mary Rowlandson’s narrative exposes many truths difficult for the modern reader to sympathize with or understand. Elements of racism, genocide, sexism, and intolerance, added to the beliefs she holds about God’s plan, make interpreting Rowlandson’s narrative in any one way impossible. While it is easy, and maybe even best, to pass judgment on Mary Rowlandson and the people of her time for their extreme ignorance, unnecessary violence, and uncalled for hostility, there are more emotions at play here than simple negativity. Mary Rowlandson comes from England and is filled with the beliefs of Puritanism, just like John Winthrop was not too long before her. The difference between the two, however, is that Rowlandson does not appear to place herself above the Native Americans as being an example of purity and perfection. In fact, Mary Rowlandson sees her many flaws and believes that it is God’s plan for her to suffer, placing no blame upon the tribe even in the face of the deaths of her young daughter, sister, and nephew. She does not cause suffering among the Native Americans or act as though that is what she wishes for them. John Winthrop’s “City Upon a Hill” had no space for anyone but the purest Puritans. He dreamed of a city of white supremacist patriarchal preaching elitists whose only concern was for themselves and their own profits. Rowlandson’s view of her world is not the same as his. Challenging the ideas that Native Americans are less than the English, Rowlandson shows respect to both her master and King Philip. She is not ashamed to beg for charity from those who are different from her, and she trusts that they will not kill her or the other prisoners when they tell her they won’t. Even though she is revolted by their bloodlust and celebration after murdering many Englishmen, Mary Rowlandson does not confront the Natives with her beliefs. She seems to understand their position and how her own captivity is not what they want either. An ongoing struggle she acknowledges is the shifting between kindness and hostility of the tribe who holds her captive. Though this frightens her, bringing up such a thing to her readers reveals a truth that many during her time would rather not acknowledge: the Native Americans are not savages. In their fear and starvation, they are still grateful to Mary for her help in clothing their children, for she is paid for her services and treated far better than a slave would be at this time. The bigger picture in this case is not one of purely genocide and sexism displayed in King Philip’s War and English Puritan society. Respect, trade, and sympathy are possible between two different peoples as shown by the Native American who gives Mary a bible, the starving squaws who feed her, and the men such as Mary’s husband who work for peaceful resolutions to land disputes rather than bloodshed. In comparison to the ideal of the “City on a Hill” and Dryden’s retelling of the conquest of Mexico, Mary Rowlandson’s narrative shows the real disparity that exists still today between every difference in opinion. Rowlandson’s narrative is one of many pieces of history that make the past not as clear cut as some would have us believe.

-Meredith Leonardo

Advertisements

The Convoluted Nature of Reality: The “Moby Dick” Edition

In reading Mary Rowlandson’s narrative of her capture by the Algonquian tribe, I can’t help but be reminded of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, in that it complicates a history of intolerance while also providing new insight on cultural differences. Of course, Melville’s novel places a focus on native members with cannibalistic tendencies while also exploiting their most uncouth, and likely fictitious, habits. In agreement with Mary Rowlandson’s narrative, Melville initially supports and encourages segregation from strange cultures through stressing concern for the safety of his narrator (Ishmael). Yet this narrative is ultimately complicated after Ishmael establishes a heartfelt friendship with one of the cannibalistic natives he feared previously: Queequeg.

As Moby Dick is a fictional novel, this transition from racism to kinship is not completely surprising. Anything can happen in fiction, after all. Even homicidal whales. This is to say that, by comparison, Mary Rowlandson’s recount of her capture and the eventual friendship she forms with her masters and company is more than a little perplexing. And though her narrative does not fail to include moments wherein she was beaten and abused, or when her own religion was mocked by members of the Algonquian culture, it also includes a number of Algonquian phrases and words which were included as a means of expressing the unique characteristics of this tribe more accurately. Though Mary Rowlandson is very much opposed to her capture, she eventually expresses a certain tone of respect for the Algonquian natives.

There are many who view this expression of respect solely as a survival tactic, which is not an unfair argument to make. This was also the foundation of Ishmael’s friendship with Queequeg in Moby Dick. Much like Mary Rowlandson’s narrative, Ishmael’s deep respect and understanding of the cultural and religious beliefs of his friend Queequeg do not exempt him from believing that Queequeg’s cannibalistic tendencies are wrong. Mary Rowlandson’s personal relationship with her captors does not align with typical prejudice experienced by the majority of her own culture. This complicates the representation of these cultures in literature in that, even in fictional contexts, it is almost impossible to paint one event or culture as wholly good or bad if one wants to describe it accurately. It is important to remember that- though Moby Dick is a novel which contains its own dictionary of whaling terminology, as well as a thoroughly cited history of whaling tactics and a list of well-known species of whale and their given attributes -much of the novel is apocryphal. This pertains specifically to a great deal of the lore surrounding the natives referenced in the novel. And in cases such as John Dryden’s play, The Indian Emperour, and John Winthrop’s “Dreams of a City on a Hill”, a great deal of fictional narrative was adapted to make these realities or futures seem attainable. This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t dismiss Cortez’s affection for Cydaria or Ishmael’s friendship with Queequeg, nor should we disregard Winthrop’s ideals of this “city” as something entirely motivated by destruction. The irksome reality of it all is that the motives for all of these relationships, speeches, and narratives are very complex. Mary Rowlandson’s recount of her capture, and her friendship with her captors, undoubtedly complicates many other historical narratives of native intolerance. How we should compare and contrast these narratives is a question for another prompt.

-Savie Luce

Cities Upon a Hill

The interactions between Mary Rowlandson and her native Algonquian captors she depicts in Captivity and Restoration doesn’t much contradict the history of European intolerance towards indigenous North Americans. Instead, I think these cross-cultural exchanges, of which Rowlandson was mostly on the receiving end, complicate the English’s relationship with the society and ethics their Puritan ideals hoped to achieve in the new world.

Rowlandson didn’t directly do anything to the native people she and the rest of the Puritans encountered on the eastern coast of North America, like engage in the killings of the genocides. However, she was still complicit in the fall of another people as she came to live in lands her company colonized and removed native people from. One could understands the pain Rowlandson would feel at that moment seeing her colony torn apart limb by limb and to other native towns as captives by a raid of natives. That by itself is flatly painful. However, we cannot neglect the historical context of her sufferings, that come after her people’s own brutalization and interruption of the Native American communities for the establishment of a civilization based around their religious ideals. The bits of Algonquian language she begins to incorporate into her English and the interactions with her native captives does not change the intolerance expressed by the Puritans in attempting to achieve their religious goal and the consequences they caused in the process. However, I would say this complicates the relationship between Rowlandson and other Puritans to their contradictory religion.

In his sermon titled “A Model of Christian Charity” John Winthrop uses the phrase “city upon a hill” (47) to describe his ideal Massachusetts Bay colony. He hoped by instilling Puritan values, including “[j]ustice and [m]ercy” (34), the colony would become the model city for other Christians to follow after. However, Winthrop and the Puritan people did not consider the existence of the society they came across in their arrival to eastern North America and how their non-Puritan beliefs could be just as valuable to follow. In order to establish the city they believe is proper, many Puritan’s ironically do the opposite of what their doctrine preached by displacing and killing natives. The latter group becomes a roadblock between the Puritans and their city upon a hill away from the scrutiny they faced in England. It is through Rowlandson’s narrative that she sees a better impression of Algonquian society than she had expected.

If course the Algonquian slaughtered her people, but they let her live and eventually release her back to her remaining family. While in captivity, Rowlandson does face distress but is still fed from the little food her captors have, since they are eating bear as a desperate measure, and eventually develops a decent relationship with the Algonquian tribe. Of which she chronicles in her narrative but perhaps a bit ambiguous on because she, a respected Puritan woman, would not want to be perceived by her Puritan people as being assimilated into a “savage” non-Puritan society and believe in their tenets, if that really were the case. It’s obvious that Rowlandson has complete faith in the Christian God, since she mentions bible quotes in practically every other paragraph and later reveals how she believes every obstacle she endures during captivity is a trial from God. However, cross-cultural experience Rowlandson was a part of surely should have seen that Algonquian civilization was not completely polar to the Puritan one John Winthrop envisioned and realized the latter didn’t have to be the singular, governing belief system of that region. Although she does not state any fault in her Puritan religion, Mary Rowlandson’s narrative of captivity illustrates how her interactions with native peoples calls into question the wholesomeness of the Puritan religion in comparison to the “savage” ways of the Algonquians.

-Wendy Gutierrez

A Colonial History of Violence

Mary Rowlandson was held captive for eleven weeks and five days after she and her three children were taken captive by a Wampanoag raiding party. The details of the brutality Rowlandson witnessed and at times endured give readers a look into the conflicting relationship between the colonists and the natives. Rowlandson’s interactions with the Algonquian people complicate and contradict the history of intolerance against native people during the English colonization period. Though Rowlandson initially endures brutality and suffers the loss of her baby, the development of her writing gives the natives a sort of humanistic perspective that early writers did not give before. For example, when Rowlandson is taken to meet with King Philip, she begins to weep and when a native asked her why she cried, she said that the natives would kill her. To this, the native responded no and that “None [would] hurt [her].” Furthermore, one of the natives “gave [her] two spoonfuls of meal to comfort [her]” while another “gave [her] half a pint of peas”, which according to Rowlandson, “was more worth than many bushels at another time”. This contradicts the idea that natives only inflicted violence upon settlers. In this scene, the natives display an act of kindness during a time when Rowlandson showed vulnerability and sadness. When Rowlandson meets with King Philip, he offers her a smoke of his tobacco pipe as a compliment and though she speaks about how sinful smoking was, she never explicitly states whether or not she accepted to smoke. In the ninth remove, Rowlandson learns that her son is less than a mile from her and when she asks for permission to go and see him, they allow her to do so. The simple and seemingly meaningless acts of kindness contradict the ideas that both people were completely intolerant of one another.  In a close-up view, the threats Rowlandson faced and the deaths she witnessed in Lancaster may cause readers to have sympathy for her. However, by looking at the situation from a historical, outside, and educated perspective, the deaths that happened in Lancaster and the threats Rowlandson faced do not evoke much sympathy. The conflict that led up to the actions taken by the Algonquian people were a consequence of the white immigrant colonists’ constant invasion on native lands (a consequence of their own actions and example of hypocrisy). When taking into the consideration the years of violence and constant dehumanization natives faced, one small raiding party and the death of some white colonists does not measure up to the hundreds of native people and children brutally murdered. Rowlandson’s writing does confirm the violence that existed between natives and English people, but only to a certain extent. Many of the threats Rowlandson faced were words and actual brutality was not commonly placed upon her. Her writing complicates history because the natives did not invade the small town just to inflict violence. They acted upon violence to capture the wife of a minister and to defend themselves against the constant white invasion. Perhaps Rowlandson restrained herself from including more details in order to protect her Puritan chastity, but the small details actually mentioned and the inclusion of native words only support the idea that she actually formed some type of unspoken bond with her captors.

-Maria G. Perez

The legacy of ” A city upon a hill”

 

John Winthrop, the first leader of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and devout Puritan, wrote A Modell of Christian Charity, to facilitate the development of a strong community, as he and many other puritan settlers were on their way to the new land on the ship Arabella. In his sermon he discusses how the colonist should treat each other in order to ensure the survival of the new colony as well as listing the three reasons for differentiation of rank in society. He notes that firstly, God demonstrates his wisdom in creating different ranks of man, each rank is meant to respect each other, and lastly it brings mankind closer together so that through love and respect we can also depend on one another. To finish his sermon, he states “For wee must consider that wee shall be as a city upon a hill”, meaning that the colony must follow those three guidelines in order for the community to survive because they will be watched by outsiders and if they fail as a community they will have failed God and their beliefs. Winthrop intended for the community to lead by example with Puritan beliefs, due to him and many other Puritans not being able to live under Charles I, who was against the Puritan ideology. Winthrop wanted each class to work together and be able to rely on one another for a properly functioning community, but today we have conflicts amongst majority of Americans in regards to beliefs, gender conformity, politics, and many more. In some regards the “city upon the hill” is still in tact in that America is still one of the leading countries for opportunity and equality, and in some aspects Winthrop was expressing a faith in American Nationalism that would predate the founding of the United States in 1776 which in a sense gave way to the idea of our first amendment. The key difference being that Winthrop was enforcing Puritan ideals and today we focus on a separation of church and state although religion does come up a lot in politics. John Milton on the other hand had different intentions on the meaning of “a city upon the hill” in his speech given to Parliament in 1644, he titled it AREOPAGITICA, in reference to the speech given to the ancient counsel of Athens in regards to the diminished power of the Aeropagus counsel, elders of the community, that would meet on top of a hill. Milton referenced the City on the hill to demonstrate just like the Aeropagus lost rights from the council, people elected from the community, the English people lost their rights when parliament put restrictions on literature. Both Winthrop and Milton are similar in their use of a “city upon a hill” to demonstrate the importance of freedom but they differ on what it means to be that city on the hill. Winthrop means to lead by example with puritan beliefs while Milton means to demonstrate the effects of restriction on their freedom, but they both are stressing the importance of freedom and respect of different ideas which in most aspects is still held in todays world although it is not always as effective as some may wish it to be.  The recent Women’s march that began in the united states was a movement seen all around the world, demonstrating just how important America is to the rest of the world. Marches were seen across the globe in support of women’s rights, although here in America women have more rights than many other women across the globe. The point being that America is still a “city upon the hill” in that across the globe we as a nation have influences everywhere. What happens in America is discussed globally whether that be good or bad. With such a powerful country and an emphasis on freedom of speech and equality, America is constantly in the spotlight and scrutinized for everything that happens as a nation. For example, the election of Trump is globally talked about and has many other governments not only responding on social media in response to Trumps winning the election but also taking political matters into their own hands to support international efforts that trump has just attempted to stop funding for. America will always be “the city upon the hill” I think because with such a powerful country that is so different and so free compared to most other places in the world, we will always be scrutinized for being essentially the symbol of freedom.

Getting the gist of the phrase “city upon a hill”

If we trace the origins of the phrase “city upon a hill” which was taken from Matthew chapter 5 of the Bible, the connotations are made pretty evident. Jesus, the speaker, is encouraging Christians to becoming a shining example of holiness; to practice all of the admirable qualities the “blessed” have (Matthew 5:3-11). Just as a city upon a hill cannot hide, Jesus asks that Christians therefore “in the same way, let your light shine before others that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16). This request isn’t meant to be one that asks Christians to boast about their good works, in fact in the very next chapter of Matthew, Jesus admonishes: “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven” (Matthew 6:1). The city upon a hill, in this sense, is then meant to serve as a “beacon”, and a Christian is not necessarily meant to be a flashy, pompadour, and self-righteous individual, but one that is a role model for goodness and holiness. Obviously we can’t ignore the denotative qualities of the phase “city upon a hill”. A city is a group of individuals coming under one nation; similarly, Christians recognize themselves as the people of God, and so there is a sense of nationality amongst the group. Of course, I believe that this second connotation that we may have derived from the phrase takes second chair. I say this primarily because how the metaphor was wedged in between two other metaphors (the salt and light, the candle and bowl) that were all essentially conveying the same message. This message, as we know, was summarized in Matthew 5:16.

After acknowledging that “city upon a hill” has two meanings, the latter not so important, it’s interesting that Winthrop chose to use the phrase. This isn’t to say that John Winthrop was hijacking the phrase and using it out context, only that he wasn’t using the primary metaphor. If we can recall, John Winthrop in his sermon, A Model of Christian Charity, uses “city upon a hill” to describe the colony being established in America. He asks his followers to obey certain cardinal values, for example “Justice and Mercy” (34), and treat others the way you want to be treated (35). The motive behind this sermon, is to encourage the people to work together, so that England can see that they are doing just fine on their own: “For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are upon” (47). Winthrop’s sermon is optimistic, it encourages the people that they too can be a beacon of hope to other pilgrims, provided that they follow a certain set of ideals and more importantly, get along with each other (which ties in the nationality part).

In regards to modern usage of the phrase, if we can successfully separate the fact that John Winthrop was a fervent Christian, knowingly using the phrase with religious connotations, but moreover to encourage a pride of nationality, we can see that modern usage doesn’t do justice to Winthrop’s meaning and definitely not Jesus’. Winthrop, like Jesus was arguing for sense of morality, a goodness that could bring the people together and serve as a beacon, Regan on the other hand, focuses on the city aspect of the phrase. He remarks that we’re different, coming together under the same nation, but that we are a melting pot who is open to everyone. In the speech, he makes it clear that America is a beacon of freedom and that is the only attribute, not that it’s just or that its good or that it’s moral, as Jesus and Winthrop alluded to. Similarly, Obama’s farewell speech took on the same verbiage that America was a beacon of freedom, a melting pot, etc. which changes the original meaning significantly, but not exceptionally. Obviously secular people may disagree, arguing that they’re essentially equal to each other, but as a Christian myself I can see the ways the Word of God has been augmented to fulfill a separate agenda, in the case of Regan and Obama, almost completely. Of course, there are parallels, the ones I have aforementioned, and so I can definitely see the similarities though they are broad.

 

-Sara Nuila-Chae

A Remodeled City On The Hill

John Winthrop’s sermon, A Modell of Christian Charity, describes the image of a beautiful model city that would be created from a basis of justice, mercy, and loving thy neighbor as one wishes their neighbor would love them. These guidelines were what Winthrop described to be a successful and model nation for the world to see.

To believe that Winthrop’s ideologies are capable to be applied to the present America is not a belief I find worth arguing for. In fact, I would argue that the model set by Winthrop is a model worth pursuing but with restriction. Winthrop mentions that in this nation,  “[w]ee must delight in eache other; make other’s conditions our oune; rejoice together, mourne together, labour and suffer together” (47), and I would agree that this is something that a nation today should strive for as well. In other words, a nation should be one that stays together, takes care of one other, and celebrates one another. Given the time period, to say sticking together is the equivalent of sticking with one’s kind. Bringing Winthrop’s ideas to a the present day would require the acceptance of all backgrounds, cultures, religions, sexualities, and separate beliefs, and I would argue that if Winthrop were among us today with his ideals, he would be appalled at our lives.  

However, recent events have brought some of Winthrop’s words back to life. Winthrop notes that the new nation he travels to will have all, “eies of all people are uppon us” (47), and his tone while saying this is one that is very hopeful of the new colony he was heading to. Indeed the eyes of the world were upon the nation as it developed into the nation it is today, and once again, America is in the eyes of the entire world with the recent inauguration of Donald Trump. This is where Winthrop’s ideas take form to divide the nation as we are watched all around the world. With the eyes of the world, a divided nation either looked for support in their protest or acceptance of their new President.

Overall, while the ideas Winthrop describes is, at a cursory glance, an ideal goal to strive for, but there are changes that would have to be made first.

-Elizabeth Dominguez

The Foundations of a Timeless City

John Winthrop’s “A Modell of Christian Charity” describes a moral and beneficial type of community which the colonies should follow in order to produce the healthiest environment for progress.

While Winthrop develops his ideal for community with his roots in Christianity, many of the core reasons surrounding his ideology have the potential to be universal. For example, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you” is a simple yet fundamental pillar to society and community. Simply treating others in a way you would like to be treated has grown to be very normal in the 21st century. In regards to being an example of “a city upon the hill,” this American colony will be the precursors to a large and vast country of freedom and unity. Winthrop’s vision for the future and the potential of man is what truly stands out in the text; not without differences compared to Raegan and Obama. It is not entirely that American exceptionalism is the focus of the piece, but that the individuals and social guidelines that create such a community is what truly matters. Furthermore, the city he so highly thinks of has been chosen through divine right, subject also to scrutiny from the church as well as the New World. While the rhetoric revolves around charity and Christian values,  the deeper social ramifications of being a highly visible city is one of uncertainty.

As Obama once said in his farewell address, “I learn from each and every one of you every day;” suggesting that the human relationship built between both government and the people fosters an environment of progress. This progression towards a better America partly constitutes the “city upon a hill” concept that Winthrop preached about. While the language of the message has changed with the years, the central idea of morality has not. Although, the political message of Winthrop’s scrutiny versus Reagan’s self-proclaimed greatness is the dividing difference. Winthrop stresses the importance of “proving” oneself while Reagan pridefully claims that America is already great.

And so, much of Winthrop’s optimism for a better future is kept alive by the American people in a way that emphasizes human connection and charity above political or economic progression. Without the support and inter-dependency between people and government, such a “city upon a hill” would never have lasted beyond Winthrop’s time.

 

-Daniel Corral

City Upon a Timeless Hill

As stated by John Winthrop (1630), “For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon.” This means that this new area that they are approaching must become a leading example of rightful living for the following colonies that are yet to come. Winthrop wants this newly found land to be the standard of community/government for the rest of the unknown territory that lies ahead.  Although Winthrop has stated certain democratic/freedom ideas in the Model of Christian Charity, it must apply to those with him in the Arbella. Even though he has used biblical words that imply democratic ideals, such as “Wee must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekeness, gentlenes, patience and liberality.” He did not hold up his end of the bargain with the Native Americans that lived in the territory. As history has told us, the Natives roaming in what we call today as “America”, were pushed away and conquered by the colonists. They conquered the Natives and became a colony with their own set of rules and guidelines. By claiming righteousness of God and so forth, it lays the foundation of what is to become of this land. And over a century later, these colonists had declared their independence from Great Britain and became Americans. This land was no longer part of Great Britain, but a part of early American history.

But does the “city upon a hill” still have the same meaning it did when Winthrop had said it? Yes. It sets up a parallel to what JFK went through during his time period. In the 1950’s, the United States had just finished World War II and has entered the battle against Communism. Communism was spreading like wild-fire and the United States had declared that they will prevent it from spreading. They did this by establishing their own ideologies and economic systems around the world. By intervening in Korea and Vietnam, the United States had finally become this “city upon a hill,” and is now trying to spread its “greatness” elsewhere. When JFK used it during the General Court of Massachusetts, he stated that the United States and its actions has caught the world’s attention. He also addressed how the United States government and its infrastructure at every level is like a “city upon a hill”. What JFK means by this is that their model of government is a leading example for the world to follow. Thus, JFK is using the phrase for propaganda and patriotism for his country. However, in comparison to Winthrop, JFK’s meaning of leading by example was much bigger globally. Winthrop was discovering unknown territory whereas JFK and his predecessors and successors were trying to establish their own set of ideologies in different countries by policing the world. But what they did was the same, push the established agenda away and set up camp for themselves.

Even today the phrase is still being used in American politics. Just last year, Barack Obama referred to the phrase to counter Donald Trump’s claim to “fixing the United States by himself. Obama is stating that it takes more than just one person to “fix” America and its problems. It takes everybody in the United States to come together to solve its problems. As America’s future is uncertain under Trump, Obama believes the people of the United States will be able to pull through the hard times and become a nation that is united and not divided. Just like Winthrop stated in the Model of Christian Charity, we all must come together as one. Both Winthrop and Obama believe that people must come together as one to make this so-called “city upon a hill”. Although times have changed, the phrase has not. However, the original phrase from the Bible has lost its original meaning throughout time. But when it comes to Winthrop’s take on the city upon a hill, it has its uses in propaganda and patriotism. But for how long? Winthrop was referencing from the Bible; JFK and Reagan referred to Winthrop- how long would it take for someone to refer to the phrase “city upon a hill” to former presidents instead of the Bible and Winthrop?

-Christopher Luong

A City Upon a Hill: Vulnerable prosperity

At the top of a peak, off in the distance among the protruding sunrise- a kingdom. When we look at something ideal, models, and dreams, we associate them with precision, unity and gracefulness. A community on top a hill shows knowledge and cooperation. Many tales are told to that of which a person must climb a hill or mountain if they want to obtain some mystical knowledge, quite literally rising to a higher power.

Winthrop writes of the absolute necessity of having to unify as a community. It is through the message of God that the people- rich and poor- will be the body, joined together intertwined shooting forth for one purpose. It may be as that of a master crafted watch: all the parts must move together operating intricately in order to have functionality and be able to display the master craft. A model community is to be in place and display harmonious bonding that radiates profound love. The mercy, understanding, and patience of everyone in the community is what will maximize the relation to the church and to God. God is said to have made people in different classes to show his wisdom in the variety of different people. We must see the differences in others, absorb them, and then find common ground.

To be on a hill is being seen, and so more pressure will be on to do good, and well. The most refined actors, athletes, public speakers, politicians, and singers all have one thing in common: When they perform, it looks effortless and shows art and beauty. That is how the hill is supposed to resemble and foster all those that reside within it.

 

-Daniel Estrada