The Wars That Shaped America

The wars that transcribed in the west were seemed to be taking place on a consistent basis I as the topic of who controls who/what became deeper. But behind every war there is always a culprit and it was none other than the British. The British were at the forefront of ever war possible trying to implement rules that were only beneficial to their cause. Their selfishness and greed gave birth to a revolution that would start many revolts and gains of independence for many different countries. 

But how can you fight over an entire country that is not yours to stake claim to? It sounds a little absurd but that is exactly what France and Britain were doing. Even William Pitt, who was the chief minister of the king stated that “America was the place that England and Europe are to be fought for.” But why allow for the fight to take place where not only the land but the people were different in everything from religion to the types of food being grown. Simple the British forces overpowered and intimidated the colonies in America seemingly having the colonies and those who resided there a collectivist attitude. But it wasn’t until the Great Awakening that people began to adapt individualism, this new found individualism caused free thinking of religion amongst other things. Before they began to revolt intimidation was the main source that caused the colonies to pay obscene amounts of taxes on everything from trades to stamps. The rise of the revolution within the colonies was from something so simple as being cohesive. The colonists banning together and rising up against the British I’m sure is the last thing they expected since the colonist were known for having internal difficulties when it came to agreeing on a number of factors. But the one thing many did agree on was that it was time to be free and separate from the British and this ideal trickled from country to country and caused revolutions against the French as well. 

The creation of the Constitution was a great idea in theory and I say in theory because it only applied to a select amount of individuals and those individuals were predominantly white men. Although during the Seven Years’s War a small gesture ensued. The Seven Years’ War played somewhat of a positive role in regards to slavery. Quakers became on e of the first religious groups to discourage its members from owning or trading slaves. Having the Constitution apply to all men and women of each race would have been more suitable especially since majority of the American economy rested on the backs of slaves who helped to develop this country economically and definitely through agriculture. If there is one thing that can be taken from all the wars and Constitution its individualism and acceptance of all. The wars could have been preventable if the colonist felt as if heir needs were being met and they were not just being used for the gain of a military that did not protect them. And the acceptance of people as equals and not categorizing men and women of color as slaves and therefore being protected under the United States Constitution.  

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3592

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3593

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3595

The Pequot War and the English Colonization

The continued settlement of the New World seemingly brung an array of territorial wars and fuels between the Puritans and the Pequots. Upon reading the different articles it seems as if the Pequots were consistently targeted from an offensive standpoint when certain demands or “requests” were not met and that the shape of American values and morals are simply derived from the Puritans. The different viewpoints of authors Steven Katz and Alfred Cave could not be more far apart with each author having a strong belief as to who was at fault. Steven Katz had the opinion that not only did the Pequots act in aggression but that was the cause for the Pilgrims and settlers to defend themselves. Alfred Cave’s theory is the most thought out and has more accounts of the actual war or what was taking place at that time. Alfred Cave presented the theory of the Puritans acting as the aggressors as a way to keep the Pequots Indians in an inferior position. The need to keep them in this position was based off of the fear that the Pequots were satanic and posed a threat to the expansion of their settlement and spread of religious values. After reading all articles it seems as if the need to own a portion of land and feel acceptance, inclusion and a portion of religious control was a strong basis for not only the Pequot War but the genocide of many Natives. 

The aggression that was constantly mentioned by Steven Kentz was more so present amongst the Natives themselves. The aggression was from a need to have control over certain tribes and obtain leadership, which is shown with Squanto and his need to try and overthrow the leadership of Massasoit by becoming an interpreter for the Pilgrims. Another instance is when the Narragansettes joined forces with the English to help overturn any type of control that the Pequots had. A constant battle over leadership was amongst the Natives when it was only deemed necessary for control over territory. But as stated in previous readings many Natives had their own territories that they controlled free of confrontation from other tribes due to topography. The constant teaching of Natives, the plantation of Indian corn, shows just how welcoming and accepting the Natives could be to those who did not pose a threat but only wanted to learn. But we should not get the term learning confused with the word entitled. Which is what the English settlers seemed to think they were when it came to adventuring to the New World. 

As I read through the Digital History articles not only did religion standout yet again but so did the notion that the English took ownership of certain parts of the Americas. Alfred Cave’s argument that the Puritans acted out of pure aggression is supported by recounted statements and the apparent genocide that had taken place with the massacre of Pequot people including women and children. The land that was not only rightfully their land was being given and divided up amongst the English as if they were entitled to it. The Pequot were defending their land against those who were not only treated with hospitality but who were also trying to force their religion onto the Natives, even by translating scriptures into their native dialect. The judgement of thinking that the Pequot were savages and Satanic led to the aggression and offensive attacks. The English believed that by not attacking first it would make the Indians think that they were cowards as stated by Reverend Thomas Hooker. If I had to chose which argument I would agree with it would be that of Alfred Cave. Mr Cave gave statements and facts to cooperate his argument that the English were on an offensive rampage while Steven Kentz gave bias accounts of what occurred. By seemingly taking race out of the equation he tried to place blame on both parties not considering the blatant invasion and intrusion of someone’s home and native land. 

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3588

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3577

Pequot War taking sides pdf

European Colonization

The settlement of the Americas by different countries entailed a lot of death, dispair, trade and selfish gain. The Dutch, French, Spanish and English all had a hand in the colonization of the Americas, one more than the other. The French seemed to be the least brutal or savage of the four. I could actually understand their reasoning for traveling to the Americas and trying to establish a better trade route. The French were actually majorly civilized with the Indians and were welcoming of the advice they gave them when it came to traveling the lands and using canoes. They even went as far as marrying their women to establish a better rapore with the Indians, but I guess that could seem a bit selfish as well. The only thing that seemed strange was how the missionaries decided who could buy guns and get the low price on Euros. This again shows how the hypocrisy of religion is used as a means of control. Although the control was minimal it was still ever present.

But the true conquerors of the Americas, and savage conquerors might I add, were Spain. The Spanish were very judgmental people it seems and did not mind throwing around their weight in the name of the Catholic Faith. They viewed all non-Catholic people as Barbarians and fit for “natural slavery”. Natural slavery meaning that they were born to be slaves and perform labors for other. The Treaty Of Tordesillas seems to have been a treaty made up by the Spanish to seemingly help condone their own barbaric behavior towards an entire culture. The Spanish used this treaty as a way to conquer and enslave the Indians. The most barbaric time of it all was when governor Onate came over in 1598. During his reign, Onate a long with his fellow Catholics would do whatever they deemed fit in order to break the spirits of the Pueblo people in order for them to denounce their own ancestral worships. They would would rape, torture, beat and even amputate the legs of all men over 15 so that they would not escape. But what I did not know about was the Pueblo Revolt, how I have never heard of this honestly no longer comes as a shock to me. Forgive me for saying this but I was happy to learn of the revolt and how the Pueblo people, even without proper means to communicate, managed to stage this takedown of the Spanish and send them on their way. Although they were already damaged from about eighty years of suffering, staging the first war of independence and religious freedom in America was brave and courageous and showed just how tactful they could be.

I’m not sure if I could be as forgiving as the Pueblo people because they did allow the Spanish to return and become their allies against Europeans.  Of the Europeans the English seemed to careless about who they had to use as forced labor in order to get their economic status in good standing. They enslaved Indians, Africans and even their own people. The English people that they used were farmers, urban laborers and artisans. It was said that the only difference between the enslavement of Indians and Africans compared to English peoplewasthethey were given “freedom dues”  after they had worked off their five to seven year labor contract. But could you imagine working for seven years without pay and then probably being given what they deemed fit for your service. Although the idea behind how they would colonize the Americas started out well, the execution was ruthless. The English felt as if they owned the rights to everything so much so that when they needed new land to continuously grow their tobacco they decided to trespass on land that was already being occupied by Powhatan. When Powhatan finally decided to cut off supplies that the English felt as though they were entitled to things began to take a turn. Pocahontas, Powhatan’s eldest daughter, was kidnapped  and held captive aboard an English ship, where she would soon be forced to marry John Rolfe for peace between both her people and the English. I say forced because what 12 year old girl would want to marry someone who is more than an decade her age, let alone from a world who constantly enslaves Native people. The colonization of the Americas is seemingly different from each standpoint of each conqueror. But although different, they all had one thing in common, the invasion of an entire world. A world of people who lived in a seemingly peaceful coexistence, that because of their vast amount of resources and knowledge and somewhat superior ways of living, were either taken advantage of, killed or enslaved for the selfish needs and benefits of those who unfortunately could not acquire success on their own. 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3574 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/pocohontas/pocahontas_menu.cfm

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3575

https://www.sutori.com/story/european-colonization-of-america-timeline--bjC7bsmAPLkcNJgiuC9S1Rfg

Reflection of the Transatlantic Slave Trade

Now I want to start by saying that any form of enslavement is inhumane and lacks justifiable means. The enslavement of entire cultures has been the discussion for hundreds of years, but when I learned about slavery growing up it was only about Africans and how they were captured and brought to the Americas by Europeans. Nowhere in the studies did it mention Indians, the Spanish, tribes/kingdoms/villages or a trade route that didn’t include the Atlantic. So it seems to me as if there was a lot more missing from the stories that we were told and the facts missing hold some severe weight. The enslavement of Africans by other Africans is on of the biggest facts of them all. 

The words slave and slavery are met with a seriously negative connotation, as they should be, but not every individual views it the same. Before continuing it may help to note that the people of Africa do not view themselves as an entire culture but rather separate nations, so what happens to Liberia is no concern of Chad, even though they are neighbors. And before saying that makes no sense, its pretty similar in America as well. What goes on in New Jersey is no concern of Georgia, unless it effects them directly. We don’t go around telling people we are American, well except when someone is telling another to go back to their country (story for another day), we tell them the city or state we are from. So when wars and raids happened between villages and the village inhabitants were captured they were made slaves to whomever reigned over them. But not all slaves were prisoners of war. Some slaves were in debt to royals or monarchs ( so they were working to pay off a debt), some were of a different religion, and you had people who were considered “aliens” to a village and therefore they were enslaved. No matter the reason for their enslavement slaves were sold to Muslims and the people of Spain or Europe. So the trade of slaves were only taking place between the countries of Spain and Europe with the traders of the coast of West Africa. The Americas had yet to come into play because it had not been “discovered”. 

See, African slaves were not yet introduced to the Americas yet because Christopher Columbus had yet to stumble upon the Americas, therefore the TransAtlantic Slave Trade had yet to exist. So in comes the enslavement of Indians and the mass takeover and wipe out of an entire culture. And it was all done in the name of Christianity coming from both the Europeans and Spanish. You would think that because these countries are so devoted to God and the welfare of humanity that they would not partake in such things as forced labor but it seemed as though slaves were not considered human. Think about Christopher Columbus and how he enslaved Indians in the name of his religion, Christianity. Using religion as the reason for enslaving entire cultures seemed to be the norm during these times. Columbus believed that because the Indians did not pray to a particular God they would have no quarrels with converting to Christianity. Now how he knew that with the language barrier is beyond me, but I digress. It was the same way with Spain and their Catholic faith. They even went so far as to make an entire document to read to the Indians when taking over their land. Although this document was created it was read only partially if at all when mass amounts of lands were being seized. But even with the capture of Indians Spain and Europe were still having issues with meeting demands for the labor departments of agriculture and mining.The TransAtlantic Slave Trade would soon change that. 

Once the TransAtlantic Slave Trade began there started to be an abundance of Africans in the Americas. There would become a point in time, between 1492 and 1820, when there was five times as many African slaves than Europeans in the Americas. Although those numbers may seem high the percentages of deaths were astounding. During the travel over the land roughly 20% of slaves would parish, another 15-30% would die upon waiting for slave ships or during capture and many more would die at sea, with their remains being found all through the Atlantic Ocean. The number of deaths however did not deter the traders from proceeding with their journey. This is likely to the fact that the selling of slaves turned over a very high profit, the more labor that you could get out of a salve the better the price. That fact is probably why two-thirds of the slaves in the New Word were males. Slaves were so profitable that they had become tax write-offs and documented property of their owners. 

It’s sad and shameful to write such things about a human. To think that people were considered property or chattel is absurd and appalling but nonetheless true. Deeply rooted within the ancestry of entire continents. Because while the rise in slavery helped with the development of other cultures and multiple continents/countries it was the demise of two other cultures. Cultures that helped to establish agriculture, technology, arts and many other things. And although the Europeans and Spain did not play a huge role with the capture of African slaves, they did their part in selling/buying them as well as the enslavement of the Native culture. So a few important things to take away from this reading is that slaves were not always captured by Europeans or Spain (more so by their neighboring and fellow Africans for a multitude of reasons) but could be bought of the coast of West Africa during and before the TransAtlantic Trade, religion was used as a means to enslave different cultures and Africans who sold into slavery were seen as a trade good or property and not human beings or as fellow Africans.  

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3569

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=445

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3571

Europeans, Indians and The New World

Let me first start off by saying, the nerve of some people. I am not going to say that I am surprised by the brutal and savage ways of Europeans but the textbooks sure left out a lot of things. Unlike the textbooks we read, Europe was not established or thriving in ways of agriculture until the settlement in the Americas. It was a divided country with numerous amounts of internal conflict until Portugal assisted with the expansion. The way it has always been perceived is that Europeans were an advanced nation that brung so many customs and advancements to the culture in the Americas. I know understand why they called them Indians and that seems to be because Columbus’ initial thought was that he had stumbled onto the Indies, so that was clever or insensitive to give a name to an entire culture that he deemed fit. But Columbus stumbling onto the New World seemed to be a double-edged sword. Europeans introduced things such as grains ( barley, oats, and rice) and certain animals (pigs, horses, sheep and etc). Although these things were introduced to the Indians the domesticated animals began to eat the agriculture planted by the Natives. Along with that the Europeans brung over diseases, diseases that were foreign to the Indians causing a mass death toll of around ninety percent of the entire culture. But the one thing that Europeans seemed to hold value to was religion and the advancement of their country. 

So with the advancement of their country over another I noticed a pattern within the three passages that I read and the most noticeable of them all was religion. Spain and Europe both were practicing in the faith of Christianity and seen it as the one religion to rule over all. What baffled me was that by claiming that the barbaric acts they committed were done in the name of Christianity, Europeans seemed to find themselves resting a little easier at night. What seemed outlandish was how they can speak or force their religion onto others who have no understanding of what the religion entails. Even when Christopher Columbus notes that the Indians would have no problem converting to Christianity because they were so willing to please others. And even by saying that the Indians had no religion because their ideologies did not match what they seen as religion was inconsiderate at the least. The fact that he believed they would be so willing to adapt Christianity just to please an entire race or culture they knew little to nothing about seems far fetched. Columbus seems to have embellished his story in order to make it seem as though the Indians were feeble, timid and regarded him as some sort of higher being. When he said the Indians called them people from the sky, makes it sound like he felt the Indians were viewing him as god-like.

Another pattern was the obvious enslavement of an entire culture and seize of vast amounts of land. When its notated that Spain viewed the Indians as “a useable labor force” there was no doubt in my mind that they would eventually enslave the Indians. It was hurtful to read how they would be sustained to exhausting and morbid labor conditions. I wish I could ask someone how is the mistreatment of others and the brutality that they instilled upon an entire culture seen as acceptable in the name of religion. Even when seizing their land Spain maid it seem as it they were giving the Indians a choice of choosing between converting or denouncing the Christian faith. But with the passage of what Bartolome de las Casas wrote he noted that with the inhumane treatment of the Indians he had known beasts to have more freedom. Even the statement that was supposedly read aloud to the Indians during seizure of their lands were seen as a joke by those who read it and even the individual responsible for writing it. So what does that say with how the Indians were viewed? To me it says that there was no regard for human life or the sustainability of an entire culture. There needed to be one dominant culture and religion, and Europe and Spain seen to that the best way they knew how with total destruction and massacre of one of the most prominent and advanced cultures this nation was established upon. 

http://www.racismisnotagame.com/blog/2014/04/28/indians-the-name-the-people-christopher-columbus

https://instructure-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/account_51520000000000001/attachments/242260/Bartolome%20de%20Las%20Casas.pdf?response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%3D%22bartolome%20de%20las%20casas.pdf%22%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27bartolome%2520de%2520las%2520casas.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDW777BLV26JM2MQ%2F20190904%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20190904T194126Z&X-Amz-Expires=86400&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=d4a7335f721e4fb38d72651bcb5a1933730cd89aa3fe02d2ad20d99dd1d09777

https://cdn.inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net/55d06f1b-4fea-476f-91e4-07be1b3b61e2/columbus_santangel.pdf?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCIsImtpZCI6ImNkbiJ9.eyJyZXNvdXJjZSI6Ii81NWQwNmYxYi00ZmVhLTQ3NmYtOTFlNC0wN2JlMWIzYjYxZTIvY29sdW1idXNfc2FudGFuZ2VsLnBkZiIsInVzZXJfaWQiOiI1MTUyMDAwMDAwMDAxNzE5OSIsImlhdCI6MTU2NzYxMzk1NCwiZXhwIjoxNTY3NzAwMzU0fQ.aTeBj_3EFIApUIUtcUNp2nNxv5s9ANW5noxg_Iqs1TfeBVcAiTfotCu37E264fq2SNYAlS0Dcd1JMFbeNGciiQ&download=1&content_type=application%2Fpdf

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/spain/spain_menu.cfm

Module 2 Reflection

History. According to The Oxford dictionary the definition of history is “ the study of past events, particularly in human affairs.” So rightfully when individuals go on their quest to find themselves or understand who they are, we typically want to start at the beginning. But the beginning does not stop at the birth of the person on the quest but more so their ancestry. So when you want to explore your ancestral history what better way obtain the information than to pick up a book whose entire focus is history. Upon reading these passages I began to think about the movie “Apocalypto”directed by Mel Gibson. In this movie he showed the Mayan kingdom and the amount of structure that was had within the different cultures that inhabited these vast lands. And in this movie there was not one horse in sight. But at the end of the movie he gives a glimpse of approaching ships with settlers aboard them and even some who have made contact with land and had some of the Natives in chains.
While going through the different readings a few particularly peaked my interest: “The Truth About Textbooks”, “Correcting Myths and Misconceptions” and “Native America on the Eve of Contact.” Although these passages were insightful they seemed to cause some conflict within me based off of the things I was taught in grade school and even the books I have read for history classes in college. The First Founders were always described as either Christopher Columbus or other early settlers who seemed to discover the Americas and started to establish America. The Americas were made out to be mass areas of land that were not inhabited by any other cultures and were free to establish a society that the Europeans deemed profitable and acceptable by their standards. Making it seem as though the Native Americans had no important roles in how America was established. However the passage “Correcting Myths and Misconceptions,” quickly dethroned that theory.
In the “Correcting Myths and Misconceptions” passage it is stated that Native Americans contributed to many things such as: modern medicine, art, architecture and ecology. Even when Dr. Petersen brings up the fact about the sophisticated agriculture and the interesting fact of how “Indians originated the cultivation of corn, pumpkins, beans and etc.” This seems to lay to rest that the Native Americans had very little to contribute to the the establishment and the progression of the Americas. But what these passages have shown are not only did they have much to contribute but they also contributed to the continent of Asia and many other European countries. Finding out these many facts was not so much shocking but more so appalling. It goes to show the amount of superiority that Europeans had given themselves over the Natives and even the notion of present Americans to try and diminish the accomplishments of an entire culture by taking the credit for themselves. When you think your way of thinking is better than another its common that you try and force your opinions and  ideologies on that person. But what happens when that person chooses to disagree and stick to their own beliefs? Well it seems that the Native Americans chose to stick with their own customs and were deemed savages by Europeans who did not understand their culture or how a culture of people could lay claim to a land that wasn’t their land on paper.
So what classifies a person to be labeled a savage? In many textbooks that is exactly how Indians were described. The stories of the “First Founders” are typically riddled with descriptions of just how much savagery the Natives expressed including their was of being uncooperative because they failed to come to certain agreements with the Europeans who felt as if they could claim the right to land simply because Natives did not have the “proper paperwork”. In the passage “The Truth About Textbooks”,  each story within the passage gives an account of what happened during the discovery and the hardships that the Europeans faced either on their voyage or from the Indians themselves. It cast the horrible image of Native Americans being savages who rode horseback and were uncivilized and had no structure. Not only do these stories depict nothing but opinions of European settlers but how often historians recycle work and occasionally add their own spin on history.
The way Native Americans are described and the way Europeans, settlers or “First Founders” are described are polar opposites. And the fact that these things are written in history books just goes to show how insensitive, ignorant and unwillingly to admit the facts Europeans are. As if Europeans want to seem as though they had it all figured out and their ways helped establish a great continent. Coexisting is something that we try and still do today, but the oppression of a culture is a trait that European Americans have seemed to keep going. I have never understood the need to wipe out entire histories of cultures and people, what does this accomplish? In my opinion, it only accomplishes the need to stake claim to something that was never truly theirs and give them a reason to be racist and continue to have a superiority complex. Make themselves out to be the superior race and culture, and the fact that they have been allowed to teach this fabricated history to those whose ancestors they stole from is a complete slap in the face. Maybe if people knew the truth the European American nation would not seem so great.

“The Americas”


http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook/Imperialism/section_3/turningpoint1.html
“Correcting Myths and Misconceptions”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3561
“Native America on the Eve of Contact”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3565
“The Truth About Textbooks”
https://cdn.inst-fs-iad-prod.inscloudgate.net/2065ba84-4867-4020-a9a4-04424d43b4e9/The%20Truth%20About%20Textbooks-1.pdf?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCIsImtpZCI6ImNkbiJ9.eyJyZXNvdXJjZSI6Ii8yMDY1YmE4NC00ODY3LTQwMjAtYTlhNC0wNDQyNGQ0M2I0ZTkvVGhlJTIwVHJ1dGglMjBBYm91dCUyMFRleHRib29rcy0xLnBkZiIsInVzZXJfaWQiOiI1MTUyMDAwMDAwMDAxNzE5OSIsImlhdCI6MTU2Njc1MTk4OCwiZXhwIjoxNTY2ODM4Mzg4fQ.z5RD-Kohtu1lWeoQUmXJqIhGzPXChipzjrZH94549cw14dKBjpLsCD5SzrVz7KASscHgh3gJEvVg1JXkoh316Q&download=1&content_type=application%2Fpdf

Introduction to a yogi newbie

Hello,

My name is JaQuilla Patterson and I am 28 years old. I am proud to say that this is my senior year and I am so ready for the next chapter of my life? Originally I’m from Detroit, MI but I have been living in Charlotte for about 10+ years. Being the eldest of four requires a lot of skill and mastery of remaining calm in difficult situations. It has taken me a long time for to start figuring out exactly who I am and what I expect out of life. Before my main concerns were my siblings and my parents only. So I was living for them and not myself just gliding through life. My rebirth began when I placed yoga on my schedule last semester...I initially chose the class because I figured it would be an easy A, never expecting to gain anything from it. Let me start by saying yes I can do a handstand and a split, two things I could never do before. Starting yoga helped me to remain calm and rational in situations that I would usually erupt over. My day normally starts with ten minutes of meditation followed by 45 minutes of yoga. When I meditate I try to center myself and relax, understand that the start of the day is joy in itself and that’s something I am grateful for. I let go of the negative thoughts and the stress over things I can not control and I know it sounds easy but it can be a task. I am a perfectionist and a control freak, so when I got my first B in Health Psychology last semester, I literally walked to the yoga classroom and began to meditate. After that media ration session I no longer found myself picking apart what could have been different that grade was already set in stone. Now whenever I feel stressed or as if something is out of my control, I either meditate or do a little yoga stretch. The patience that I have acquired from doing yoga and meditating has saved me a lot of energy and frustration. I consider myself a yogi because I am a student of yoga and I will forever remain one. I am forever changing and growing into someone I am comfortable with but there is always room for growth and wisdom. My journey is just beginning and I will go from yogi newbie to full blown yogi.

https://www.123rf.com/photo_44246311_silhouette-of-woman-practicing-yoga-on-the-beach-at-sunset.html

Test Post

I hope this works