Essays

Bee Kanofsky

Mr. Boyer

28 December 2022

A Path Not Taken

When the British colonies were heading down the path of revolution and war with their mother country of Great Britain; against, “taxation without representation”, did they ever consider the reasons for the taxes being in place? Their path to independence was carried with no consideration to the British Empire’s attempts at protecting the colonies, or the British troops that were killed to keep the colonies from falling into ruin and chaos. Even though there were voices of reason trying to stir the colonies from the beginning of the armed conflict, they ultimately did not prevail. But, it is essential when examining the American Revolution to examine where the English and Loyalist mindsets that would be a driving force in the American Revolution. The colonists who began the revolution were not justified to rebel against Britain because they benefited from the western territories gained by the French and Indian War, were taxed less than their British counterparts and were shouldering less of the debt from the war than the British subjects on the mainland of England.

One of the main reasons why the colonists had justification for their rebellion was because Great Britain won land from the French which the colonists benefited from. The Office of the Historian website stated, “By confirming the conquest of Canada and extending British possessions to the Mississippi, the colonists no longer had to worry about the threat of a French invasion.” The land acted as a buffer zone between the empire of Spain to the west and provided the Mississippi River, a better way of transporting goods from the Canadian territories to the north, to their holdings in the American Colonies to the south. In addition, trade prospered more under the British government’s control over the French. It ultimately benefited the colonial governments by bringing the fur trade in the new territories to colonial markets. As said by the Milwaukee Public Museum, “With this development (the territory gained by the French and Indian War), British traders from Canada and even a few American colonials entered the Great Lakes fur trade, although French Canadians continued to constitute the bulk of traders going west. The fur trade in Wisconsin reached its height in the last half of the 1700s because the British had less restrictive trade policies than the French and allowed more people to trade.” The war won by the British Empire not only expanded the colonies' borders but also enriched them with new trading opportunities and resources. 

Another reason the American colonies had no excuses to rebel was that their central argument that they were being taxed unfairly is invalid; in fact, it is agreed by historians that the taxes levied on the colonies were significantly less than on subjects on the English mainland. In PBS’s News Hour Jen Deadrick cited a study on the topic of colonial taxes which stated, “...the average British citizen who resided in Britain paid 26 shillings per year in taxes compared to only 1 shilling per year in New England, even though the living standard of the colonists was arguably higher than that of the British.” Even the organization that preserves Mount Vernon, George Washington’s estate, made a statement within a list of facts compiled about the colonial economies of that time which said, “Colonial and Early Americans paid a very low tax rate, both by modern and contemporary standards.” The taxes they were protesting weren’t intolerable, or unfair. It would’ve been necessary to keep their government afloat and stable regardless of whether they would be under French, Spanish, or self-rule. No justification for the colonist's revolting can be derived from unfair taxation that in all aspects was just. 

The final reason that the colonists had no reason to succeed from the British Empire, was that Britain was shouldering most of the debt that came from protecting the colonies. In winning the French and Indian war, which was waged to protect the colonies from French control and for trade interests on the frontier, the British government collected vasts amounts of debt  A statement from Digital History attests that “The British thought the colonists should help pay for the cost of their own protection. Furthermore, the French and Indian War had cost the British treasury £70,000,000 and doubled their national debt to £140,000,000.” The colonists were asking to be free of British taxes used to fund their protection, while still having the army’s complete protection of their land from rivaling colonies, nations, and Native Americans. It was important for the British government to pay the troops to stay in the Americas to protect the colonies even when their treasury was on the brink of a financial collapse, and they had to pay the soldiers to efficiently do that process. The British were protecting the colonists by taxing them to pay for the war that had been waged on their behalf and for greater benefit. 

Those are the reasons why the colonists who began the revolution were not justified to rebel against Britain. Since they benefited from the western territories gained by the French and Indian War, were taxed less than their British counterparts, and were shouldering less of the debt from the war than the British subjects, they didn’t have a justifiable reason to succeed from the British crown.  But, at the end of the day, the revolution began all the same and colonists overthrew the British government’s hold on them. But this is just an introspective on their side of the story, and I believe that it is important when examining the revolution to also know why each side believes they are in the right when it comes to justifying the conflict.

Works Cited:

Milestones: 1750â1775 - Office of the Historian. history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/treaty-of-paris.

“The Fur Trade | Milwaukee Public Museum.” Mpm.edu, 2019, www.mpm.edu/content/wirp/ICW-146.

Deaderick, Jen. “What We Get Wrong about Taxes and the American Revolution.” PBS NewsHour, 26 Dec. 2016, www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/what-we-get-wrong-about-taxes-american-revolution.

Miller, Scott. “George Washington’s Mount Vernon.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, Mount Vernon, 2011, www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-today/early-american-economics-facts/.

Chapter 6 the Problems That England Faced after the French and Indian War.

Bee Kanofsky

Ms. Brown

American Literature

5 November 2024

Stage Lights

Mika rocks back and forth in the seat next to mine. Even at eleven, I want my fifteen-year-old brother to love theater the way I do. It’s our first Broadway musical. A shout onstage signals the opening number of the show. “Nants ingonyama bagithi baba!” I hold my breath as a radiant sun rises on the stage, a blur of orange and red. Thus, The Lion King becomes the catalyst of my artistic journey.

It was a performance sponsored by Theatre Development Fund (TDF), which adjusts musical productions on Broadway to accommodate neurodivergent audiences. As Mika rocked back and forth in his seat with his black headphones, I wondered how he’d receive the musical. He disliked my obsession with musicals and my car ride playlists in general, but The Lion King had originally been a movie that he’d loved. My guess for how he’d react was about as accurate as a coin toss would have been.

It was important to me that he’d take some form of joy from theater. I wanted to share something with him, and I had convinced myself that theater could be that thing. If he didn’t enjoy the play or asked to leave early, I worried my family would become discouraged from bringing him again. 

I became so immersed in the performance I had forgotten to watch Mika. When I finally looked over at him, I breathed a deep sigh of relief. He had stopped rocking and was beaming with joy. After the performance I asked Mika how he’d felt watching the show. He said, “I was just in the groove.” In that moment, I saw new possibilities in my playwriting for creating community and inclusion. I whispered to my mom, “I’m going to do this one day.”

Fast forward seven years to my senior year. In the plays and musicals I’ve written, I can watch the words and lyrics come to life just as they did during The Lion King. My brother has become a fan of musicals, maybe not to the level I am, but I’ll take what I can get. Our connection to TDF has helped me see my work as advocacy, and my own productions as wider opportunities to cast actors who reflect the diversity of audiences. 

I’ve had the honor of being part of the Philadelphia Young Playwrights (PYP) for three years, first as a resident playwright, then as a produced playwright. This year I initiated a fundraising project YA4A (Young Artists for All) to help sponsor Philadelphia Young Playwrights bringing playwriting residencies into additional Autism Support Classrooms in Philadelphia. My fellow student playwrights and I, who are having work produced by Philadelphia Young Playwrights, are raising money by creating brands and merchandise for our plays, then investing that money back into the PYP community to build classes that accommodate neurodivergence. It’s my way of giving back to the community that has supported my amazing brother and my trajectory in life. 

Mika and I are both looking for a community. While he weightlifts in the Special Olympics, I write to the sound of thunderous applause as he deadlifts. When he skips rocks across the river, I find a spot next to him to brainstorm new scenarios and characters. When our interests intersect, we find ourselves excited to collaborate and have fun. Now he makes up his own songs and enlists me to write down the lyrics.

I write for both of us. I write for the enjoyment of creating art, to tell meaningful stories. I also write in order for my brother to see himself onstage and see art in people like him. When I reminisce about the boy rocking back and forth in the orchestra seating of the theater seven years ago, I could have never known how that experience would shape both of our futures.

Bee Kanofsky

Professor Grover

L&T Section 14

26 August 2025

The Monster of Frankenstein

I didn’t fully understand the nature of the movie Frankenstein (1931) when I saw it. It felt like a weird slasher film that I honestly didn’t need to put much thought into. For the most part it is, because that is what it was made for. Mindless scream entertainment and delightful mayhem for the audience of the time to sink their teeth into. But I left feeling confused. Who was the monster that was being portrayed in the film? Surely that wasn’t the creature portrayed in the book. 

The creature portrayed in the book, Frankenstein (1818), was kind, intelligent, and ultimately was not a monster but just as much a man as his creator. Through the book I remember sympathising with the creature's struggles despite his violent methods. It didn’t feel like a horror book simply because of the creature that defies the logic of death, but how the people around them despise their existence. There is even a moment where he weeps over the struggle of Native Americans. It was a creature ahead of its time, deserving of respect, sympathy, and even love.

Meanwhile, the brute portrayed in the film was heartless, a groaning mess of sewn flesh with the mind of a criminal and only had the capability to destroy. It was good for an audience who wants to be scared. But I am not that demographic. I wanted to think and feel through seeing the film. 

I left the screening confused and went to my professor to talk about it. 

As I sat down we discussed the first draft of the essay which I had written down. It had some initial impressions and ideas to the nature of the film. But I confessed that it felt more like an academic paper the way I was approaching it, with no unique angle to look at the story from.

“Have you thought about it being about eugenics?”

Eugenics. 

Eugenics, or alternatively called Social Darwinism, at the time of the 1930s was treated as a respected science. Its goal was to breed people with desirable traits. Those “desirable” traits being those of Anglo-Saxons. It wasn’t just a fringe movement of the public consciousness as with many racist ideals. It was supported by huge personas of the era including Theodore Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, W.E.B Dubois, Winston Churchill, and surprisingly (and despairingly enough) even Heller Keller supported the movement to weed out “social ailments" and "undesirable traits” as the founder of the movement, Francis Galton put it. 

It was advertised to the public as a way to lessen crime and to make sure that mental illnesses couldn’t spread to future generations through birth. It may sound absurd, because it is. But its validity didn’t matter to its supporters, only its promises. 

Even after the worst act in human history, the Holocaust, which was primarily fuelled by the ideals of Eugenics, it still continued with its popularity and use even to today. There are bans on a state by state basis in the U.S, but no formal bans nationwide with the precedent case of Buck v. Bell, stating that it was constitutional for states to sterilize individuals who were deemed unfit to have children, still being legal precedent. With that many countries in the world use them in prisons and concentration camps.

The idea that skin and mind determined character as opposed to action, and character, no, rather it determined everything about their being is a monstrous idea within its nature. If someone is of a race or color, does that mean that they would automatically see a child and subconsciously think, “It needs to be killed.” No. Watching the monster on screen killing without regard for others lives felt like not just a betrayal of his character, but his humanity. His humanity… was portrayed to be linked to his mind and nature. 

It fully clicked.

That is what Frankenstein’s Monster was in the film. A portrayal of eugenics. I began to research and think more about it. 

If the film was about Eugenics, where did it stand on it?

Well I dug into the film and I found that there is a clear statement being implied by the filmmaker which came off through the character of Frankenstein's Monster:

The nature of a human is dictated through their birth and their predetermined nature.

In a pivotal scene early on in the film Fritz accidentally takes the brain of a criminal, named abnormal by the scientist whose classroom he is taking it from, instead of a regular brain. When confronted by the scientist whose lab the brain was stolen from, Henry Frankenstein replies that the creation has yet to show signs of that yet and could be normal.

In fairness, that is a nuanced approach to the movie and it could be argued that could be applied to the rest of the film. That is, if that scene were shown within the creature's actions. 

There is something disturbing about his first victim, the assistant to Doctor Frankenstein and a deformed man named Fritz. The first person killed by the monster was a person who was also othered by society. If it had been the doctor who later attempts to dissect him the message would be clear: the problem is the person who imposes themself on those who they think less of. Yet the first person, hung by the throat, is another person who is seen as lesser like the monster. That gives lenience to the argument that oppressed people had been oppressing one another before Anglo-Saxons and others had done so. It forgives Henry Frankenstein and instead blames the othered people. The sneaky, cruel, ill tempered hunchback who whipped the monster. 

His killing of the doctor attempting to dissect him is more justified and fully understandable. If that had been his final victim then he might have gotten away with being a flawed character, but a nuanced one nonetheless. 

 Yet the moment he kills the girl and attempts to murder others including Henry Frankenstein he then loses the humanity that the creature had in the original book. He goes from a character driven by survival, to one only driven by revenge. There’s no compassion within his killings, except for the brief shot of him looking at his hands in shock. But that is not him afraid of his nature or wanting to change it. It’s simply just a shot showing the monster that he was born as.

The nuance of the original Frankenstein creature wasn’t that he was killed for a reason, but that he actively regretted the action, where the monster in the movie seemed to shrug it off. 

I have read that the sequel to the film, Bride of Frankenstein (1935), is more faithful to the book and in turn more thought provoking in the defense of people othered, but it wouldn’t be fair to judge it based on what later came on and what I have not yet seen. 

For what it is, the movie fully serves the audience of the time. They would have feared the deranged people that could be hiding in plain sight as peaceful people, they wanted an enemy to identify that fear that they might have had with Jewish people, African-Americans, Asians, etc. They got one through this. They got their clear day image of what a person who’s different could do to innocent people. 

Who would want to let their childhood go through the neighborhood of new immigrants if there could be the possibility of them being hung like Fritz across a pole? Or worse yet, what if their children began to empathise with the struggles of those people? What if the monster they wanted to believe was there was just as human as them?

No.

My family and I would be considered those monsters. My peers and my professors and the communities I hold dear would be considered those monsters. So they can’t have our faces for their fears, but an artificial one would work in that place.

As the characters in the story lit him on fire the audience’s hearts at the time must have ignited as well.  The pathway was clear. To get rid of the menace, they had to rid the menace from life. In a faithful adaptation of the book it could have been even scarier than the movie we got. It could have been something that the amalgamation of flesh would cower in the sight of, the true potential of kindness and humanity in a place nobody would expect it would be in. His murders and the regret he feels would sting even more when he fully attempts to escape the world he knows to spite his creator, his flawed human creator. Frankenstein from the 1931 film, wasn’t a flawed character, he was the perfect strawman to a flawed science. His straw burns easier than flesh, and is simple for a fire. With that in mind, who would want to ignite the first torch?

Works Cited:

“Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).” Justia Law, 2019.

Eugenics in Frankenstein – Confluence. 3 May 2019. 

“Frankenstein (1931) Screenplay.” Internet Archive, 12 Aug. 1931.

Galton, Francis. “Hereditary Genius.” Journal of Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 1, July 1870.

Goldfarb, Kara. “21 Eugenics Movement Supporters That Might Shock You.” All That’s Interesting, 20 July 2018.

Shelley, M. (2018). Frankenstein. Penguin Classics.

“The Movement That Inspired the Holocaust - Alexandra Minna Stern and Natalie Lira.” Www.youtube.com, Ted Ed, 10 Mar. 2022.

Whale, James. 1931. Frankenstein. United States: Universal Pictures.

Bee Kanofsky

Professor Grover

Memorials, Monuments, and Memories

11 September 2025

We Saw the Plumes Rise

Remembrance By Bee Kanofsky

June 10th, 1998.

My grandmother, Karen Arak, was watching the television. It was 11:39 at night and around that time she didn’t really care what was on as long as it helped her to sleep.

Then on ABC an interview went on. The interview was the main event after the bombings of military bases in Arabia and a bombing in the basement of the World Trade Center. The show, Nightline, was being hosted by Ted Koppel the “brilliant journalist from Syracuse University” as my grandma would add with a smile and affirming nod, but the interviewer was John Miller.

The camera followed the main subject as he walked unsteadily towards them. He had an attache of fighters, their faces cloaked in Backlavas and Keffiyehs. It looked as if they were ready to go into battle right after the show.

The crew then cut to just before the interview, when the same attache fired their guns in the air, celebrating the arrival of their leader. It looked as if it was an impromptu firework show in the making. He walked in smiling, waving to the soldiers and staring into the lens of the camera.

The main subject was wearing something between a white ghutrah or a heavily wrapped kefiyeh on his head along with loose fitting military-esque attire and a white robe underneath it. The way he carried himself was a display of power. He sat comfortably with an AK-47 in his lap as he went about the interview.

“He was scary.” my Nana said to me as we went over the memory. 

He discussed how he was declaring war on the whole of the United States, declaring that America was the greatest terrorist organization, and a threat to Muslim women and children. 

My nana had seen this talk before. The First Intifada had occurred a decade before, and proceeding it U.S military and Israeli military involvement in the region had increased. In return car bombings, suicide bombings, shootings in Tel Aviv, and attacks on U.S. bases in Afghanistan increased dramatically. Her son-in-law, and my dad, Nathan Kanofsky was familiar with those attacks too having witnessed similar activities of the IRA while in London. 

In response to the man, Ramzi Yousef, who detonated a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993, the interviewee denied any involvement in the bombing itself (his checking accounts were linked to the attack). My nana was worried, Nathan passed the World Trade center’s subway station everyday on the way to work. He could have been one of the six people who died during the attack, or the nearly thousand with broken limbs and emergency hospital visits in the aftermath. The interviewee acknowledged that Ramzi had made ripples within his circles and said, with a calm and steady voice:

“America will see many young men that will follow Ramzi Yousef.”

She stopped before turning the channel. It was worrying to her, but it didn’t matter. A rerun of the last episode of Seinfeld came on and she brushed aside the cryptic language.

In retrospect looking over the interview I got numb looking at it. Sharing the reaction with my nana she shared the same reaction. I remembered when I was young asking her why she didn’t say anything if she saw those threats being broadcasted. But that was by design. Throughout the interview there were sprinkled confirmations by U.S military officials that they were taking the threat seriously, so she took them at their word. She trusted them. 

The man’s name slipped off her tongue. How was his last name spelt? Did it matter?

September 10th, 2001. 

My parents had picked up my nana and her late husband, Michael Arak, for a concert that was going to go on at Radio City on the 20th. They had come up from North Carolina just for the occasion. An occasion it was. It was the concert tribute “Come Together”, a somber but exciting event.

20 years before, the world had lost John Lennon. It devastated and surprised both the Arak family (composed of Nana, Grandpa Michael, Aunt Susan, and my mom Heather Arak) and my dad. He was by far their favorite Beatle and if one is to be part of the family it was required that they at the very least like John Lennon. 

“And don’t you forget it.” my mom would often remind me in times I’d forget who her favorite Beatle was, especially during the interview. 

It was anticipated to be a star-studded occasion. It would have John’s widow Yoko Ono there, his son Sean, his fellow bandmate Paul McCartney, Cyndi Lauper, Dustin Hoffman, Bruce Springsteen, Billy Preston, and with Kevin Spacey hosting. It was going to be incredible for my parents and my grandparents to have seen.

My parents worked at the time as printers and free-lance artists, working in commutes from New York City, Newark in New Jersey, while they lived in Easton, Pennsylvania. 

The thing about freelance artists is that they need supplies in order to work.

So in the car my dad went to get pastel, paint and canvas. That ensured the rent and meals for the next couple of weeks. Clouds were hanging low on the city blanketing it and as he looked up he saw the World Trade centers in its outline. The group, wanting to see the view closer, passed by the Twin Towers in the car, before heading home to Easton.

Their art studio in Jersey City had a clear view of the Twin Towers during lunch.

September 11, 2001

Three timelines commenced.

My dad had left early for the studio to do some work early in the morning. The art supplies were acquired so he could start the prints.

My nana, mom, and grandpa Michael were staying in College Park in PA for the day. She was folding laundry, hoping to help out my mom while Michael was resting nearby on dialysis.

He carved lines into the linoleum.

The TV was on with the daily news. For Nana it was background music. It helped especially with the monotonous task of folding cardigans and winter clothes.

Intricate lines, to get the right effect.

BULLETIN:

A PLANE HAS JUST CRASHED INTO THE NORTH TOWER OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.

The paint was rolled on top of the linoleum and prepped to be pressed.

“I stopped and thought, ‘how terrible’” Nana told me as the memories flooded back.

It went through the roller leaving imprints on the canvas.

                                                                    My mom quickly dialed the phone for dad’s art studio.

He checked the adjustments before-

The call.                                      The reporters began asking questions that nobody could explain.

“My first thought was I hope it’s just a small plane accident like when a plane hit the Empire State Building in 1945.”

Nana would have asked Michael for an aviator's opinion but he was unconscious again.

His mind went to 1993 with the thought, “Shit- not again.”

 My dad’s mind trailed back to the image of smoke coming out from the basement of the World Trade Center, seeing it from where my mom was working from. That idea that an entire zip code could be gone was beyond his belief.

Nana’s mind went to her friend Elaine, whose husband was on an airline at the same time. She was pregnant with his child. She prayed his plane would be safe.

He headed straight for the house, for nana, and for mom.

Both mom and Nana watched as a small dot trailed its way to the South Tower.

“When I got home to them-”                                                                                                                                                   “As your dad got through the door-”

BULLETIN:

A SECOND PLANE HAS JUST HIT THE TWIN TOWERS.

Watching the incident for dad felt unreal. 

This is worse than I imagined.

Nana began to see the plumes rise in her mind, the little beacons and indicators of warnings and affirmations. She thought back, where did those plumes rise from?

He thought about his friends and work partners. Karin Batten, an artist he and my mom were working with who had a residency on the 91st Floor of the North Tower. They were working on a series of monoprints with her and knew she was the kind of person who he knew would have been in the building early in the day. 

Wasn’t there that man who said on the news he wanted something like this to happen?

There was Per Fronth who my dad had been collaborating with for years. He lived only a few blocks away and worked as a photographer for the Norwegian newspaper. He would definitely head down to the World Trade Center as part of his job. 

God, what was his name?

There’s Chuck, his friend who worked at the Pentagon. He must have heard about this.

I hope Elaine’s okay. Wait… I remember.

“I told your mom, ‘It was him, that man from the  television… Ben- no- Bin, Bin Laden. I saw him saying he was going to answer the United States.’”

My mom went to dial in phone numbers as a second headline came in.

BULLETIN:

A PLANE HAS HIT THE PENTAGON’S HEADQUARTERS AT WASHINGTON D.C.

“I remember just watching and mom trying to call friends but it was pretty much impossible to get a connection. We were watching a channel that had their cameras right next to Per’s apartment. So when the first tower fell and the cloud engulfed the camera it was devastating. No one believed that the towers falling could ever happen.”

“It was uncanny, the night before we were in NY, and dad took us around to see the towers.  They were no more.  I watched as people ran, as plumes rose and the cloud of smoke chased people down the street.”

BULLETIN:

A PLANE HAS JUST CRASHED IN SHANKSVILLE PENNSYLVANNIA, SUSPECTED HIJACKING.

My dad, my mom, the family, and their art assistant had dinner that night.

My nana got a call from Elaine who sounded as if there was no air left in her.

He remembered it felt weird to be doing something as mundane as having dinner.

She asked Elaine if her husband was okay.

“I sat thinking, ‘This will surely be a war, but I don’t know who the war will be against.”

Nana put down the phone and palmed her face into her hands.

Elaine’s husband was on Flight 93.

His last call to her was a minute before it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

He was killed only an hour from where the family was having breakfast early that day.

She would remarry years later and lose contact with Nana.

But from what Nana could last recall she would still visit the memorial in Shanksville.

“We found out that Karin was saved by going to vote in the primaries before heading to the studio. Per was down there for his newspaper documenting the day but wasn’t physically hurt. Chuck was okay too.”

In the days following the whole family started contacting friends. Some who had to leave their apartments downtown because of their locations being close to Ground Zero.

“It was trying to get back to normal, eating on Bleecker Street with the smell of melted wires and steel in the air. Mom and I eventually went to see the Lennon tribute. It was the first event held at Radio City since the attack.”

“Grandpa Michael and I never saw the concert, NY closed down as we tried to recover bodies. I left for home, the United States had never had an attack before that day.”

“Does that make sense, Beester?”

Works Cited:

“ABC NEWS: NIGHTLINE BIN LADEN INTERVIEW : ABC News : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet Archive, 10 June 1998.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. “World Trade Center Bombing 1993.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2025.

Randy R. “Come Together - a Celebration for John Lennon Oct 2001.” YouTube, 19 Dec. 2022.

Tikkanen, Amy. “Timeline of the September 11 Attacks.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019. 

Bee Kanofsky

Professor Grover

Memorials, Monuments, and Memories

10 October 2026

Reenacting Revisited

Colonial America, with its battles, complex characters and legendary moments of creating “American identity” is ripe fodder for the theatricality of reenactments. As a student of history I enjoy diving into the Revolutionary War in all its messiness. But that is not how it is shown to audiences of reenactments. They’re shown as simple affairs. We all know who wins the battle of Trenton and we know that it won't be different this time. The showings become stale quickly when the audience applies that through that lens. So, a couple of times in history, historical preservation sites such as Colonial Williamsburg have tried to amend that narrative. In the instance of Colonial Williamsburg, they showed a horrific side of the story when on October 10th, 1994, a mock slave auction was held onsite. (Smith, Clint. “What is Colonial Williamsburg For?” The Atlantic, 10 Oct. 2025.) Although it was meant as an educational element of the reenactments, the outcry caused Colonial Williamsburg, and many reenactment groups, to go the opposite direction to display a less controversial portrayal of early American history. These less controversial portrayals omit important parts of American colonial history, thus rendering these portrayals inaccurate. From research and class discussions, public reproductions of Early America, especially in the American Revolution, are shown to be lacking in its realness and its more riveting aspects. There is a more interesting way to utilize the productions for educational purposes and a better understanding of the past.

When a volley goes off from the windows of Cliveden House during the Battle of Germantown reenactment, a few people drop to the ground slowly and pretend to play dead. Most often it is when and where they feel like it. If it is hot, like at the Battle of Monmouth reenactments (with people passing out regularly during events) then they fall near the shade of trees near Combs Hill and some drummer/fife boy might fall out of rank to check on them and refill the fallen actor’s canteen with water. On occasion, like at the Battle of Brandywine reenactment, I’d occasionally see some get up or slouch forward to see their loved ones. (I have seen some really great videos showing both the reenactor’s perspective, and that of the audience, these are some of the following as mentioned above, with details filled in from the videos and from my own first hand viewings of the reenactments: Jeffrey Houser (Son of Liberty). “Revolutionary War Reenactment: Battle of Germantown 2015.” YouTube, 5 Oct. 2015. Brandon Fisichella. “First Person Battle of Monmouth 2018, Saturday’s Battle Part 2/2.” YouTube, 18 June 2018. The Black Cockade. “The Battle of Brandywine Reenactment, 2022 | the Native Oak.” YouTube, 19 Oct. 2022.) It was uncanny to watch… I’d think to myself how many soldiers killed one another for the opportunity to see their loved ones again. The reason for these weird instances of anachronistic acting is the reason that to the people reenacting this, is a fun game. That interestingly enough is reflected in the rules that certain reenactment groups have for battle scenarios. Although there is no universal code for reenacting, based on my viewing the agreed upon rules are as follows:

1. Reenactors can’t shoot directly at the party opposite of them if they’re within 20 yards of them (if the opposite party advances within that range the reenactors are to shoot in the air)

(The stretch of space is inferred from different reenactments since there is no singular distance stated, but the area stated has been observed in person

“Guns in Reenactment” Livinghistoryarchive.com, 2025.)

2. The dress needs to look accurate and when financially possible, be either reproductions or originals of the material/items depicted

(“Behind the Lines with a Revolutionary War Reenactor” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, 2025.)

3. The person needs to look like they’d be a part of the time period, at least on the battlefield. (often, sourly, many groups deny non-white people and women roles based on that idea.)

 (Brandon Fisichella. “How to Become a Reenactor”(7:01-11:44) YouTube, 30 Aug. 2024.)

The archivists, Eddie Moran who is the archivist for the City of Kingston, and Jonathan Pamer, Ulster County Historian, put it perfectly with their descriptions of reenactors. Yes, they’re interested in portraying the past. The past being the one they fantasize about,  not the one that actually happened. The history that they portray goes from one that is brutal, human, and complex, to one that simple and artificial. But the public eats it up, so when new ideas come up for portraying the past oftentimes it is met with controversy. This is why slave auctions were banned after one performance. It was the discomfort that the actors as well as the audience felt. There are too many “stitch counters” (as described from the conversation with the archivists, “stich counters” being a term that means reenactors who are highly concerned with the material authenticity of their performances, including outfits, weapons, and tools of the time over other aspects of the portrayl) that populate the reenactment circles. The main demographic for that circle generally consists of white Anglo-Saxon protestant men in their 50’s-60’s who would be more mortified of any amount of blood staining their $1,000 reproduction coats than showing what the war was actually like.

For these reenactors, the most important conflict and period in American History is a shooting game where people play dead then get back up to join in the fun and gaes of the battle. These overly simplified performances find their place in the public memory over more rich and complex events. 

For example, near the docks of Boston, ships were piloted and manned by sailors from First Nations, African-Americans, Asian peoples, Africans, among scores of people who the time period would not note other than in records. ("Whaling Crew Diversity - Nantucket Historical Association.” Nantucket Historical Association, 24 Feb. 2022.) In town halls, the conversation of a free nation that respects all religions was debated fiercely, with the rights of different religions being on the line. In major cities there were organizations like the Quakers citizens who led movements against the war and were targeted for their “loyalist” sympathies. (Library of Congress. “Religion and the American Revolution - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress).” Loc.gov, Library of Congress, 2019.) In the forests of the frontier, nations like the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and the Stockbridge-Munsee/Mohican Nation (formerly settled on the land which is now Bard College) were torn on the issue of the war and faced the possibility of losing everything depending on the side they chose to serve with, and the risk of doing nothing at all. (“Native Nations and the Revolutionary War.” Custom House Maritime Museum, 2 June 2025.) These histories are endlessly complex and fascinating. 

During a class visit to the Pine Street African American Burial Ground in Kingston New York, I was reminded of this complexity. The burial ground was in use from the Early 1600s to the late 1800s initially by the Dutch before being passed on to the English and later the Americans. It is a messy history with many uncomfortable truths. ("Pine St. African Burial Ground.” Kingston Land Trust, 25 Feb. 2021.) As said by the tour guide, there was a possibility, walking on the unmarked graves of African-Americans from the that the people interned on the grounds were mixed race with some having been in relationships with the white inhabitants of the city, some willingly in interracial relationships, while others were forced to conceive children or were the product of that violence. That is arguably more compelling and relevant than how a musket was loaded during the revolution or why their uniforms weren’t beneficial for cold weather.

Some may say that the history being presented is not important enough to reform it. I for a long time believed that too. In all honesty it is like junk food to a history buff and a gateway drug to the average reenactment viewer to watch lines of reenactors shoot at one another for an hour and a half in full uniform while pointing out the details of the battle to the ones around you. It’s an interesting and entrancing experience! The portrayal of history through reenactments is broken, but it's not unmendable. A few examples stand out during class and from outside sources that show how reenacting could be. In the conversations between both the archivists and Kitt Potter, Director of Kingston’s Arts and Cultural Affairs Department, one idea showed up consistently: Why not show the civilian aspects of early America alongside the violence that occurred during the time period? (Kingston. “Burning of Kingston.” Burning of Kingston, 2025.)  Ms. Potter suggested gradually phasing out violent, and fictional, showings of the Burning of Kingston from 1777 in favor of showing what everyday life was like for Kingston citizens from the 1600s and times of peace. Not only does that give leeway for the reenactors to show the more tame elements Early-America (with significantly less bloodshed as “portrayed” in battle reenactments) but simultaneously provides interesting insight for the public, and especially marginalized groups, as to where they fit into the tapestry of the nation. Furthermore, as explained by the archivists, portraying times of peace could also provide bridges of understanding between groups that coexist today such as the Dutch and Indigenous people. If one sees that trade and commerce was freely had between their people and another, would they seek to antagonize them? No. They would seek to understand them and find the shared hopes and aspirations of people from the other group. That would create future relationships that positively impact and create the country around us.

There is one other possible route that can be done for public education. That route is showing the public what history could have been. That doesn’t necessarily mean a dark portrayal of what would reasonably happen with certain historical events. One key example I love is the artist Dred Scott’s staging of the 1811 German Coast Uprising. (The Guardian. “America’s Largest Slave Revolt Brought back to Life.” YouTube, 14 Nov. 2019.) Not only is it educational for the general public who look to learn more about the history of New Orleans, but it is also a somber reminder of how history could have been. Maybe the force under Charles Deslondes would have reached New Orleans. If he had taken the city with his fellow self-emancipated peoples, he could have created a republic, similar to that of Haiti, for free African-Americans to live and thrive independently from America. The key is reminding people what happened… how the people in Charles’s army was hunted down in the swamps and beheaded for rising up against their oppressors, and how the United States took the city along with the rest of the region just years later before the infamous War of 1812, continuing slavery in the area until the end of the Civil War. It’s that duality in story that compels people to be introspective and curious about the past. It is the kind of history that is important to tell in a way that is compelling, respectful, and impactful.

With that being said, if there are battle reenactments then there can be amended rules proposed to the reenacting community:

1. Reenactors must, to all safety and compliance, show what combat would have been like realistically, with authenticity being valued over accuracy. War should never be glorified or sanitized, no matter the time period. If the reenactors have a problem with it then they should reevaluate why they want to reenact an event where people were killed. Same with the public and with viewing it.

2. The costume should be provided to reenactors so that it does not become a niche resource. The quartermasters (organizers) of the events should be able to use the funds and resources provided from grants and any other resources to outfit the actors with time period accurate attire.

3. All demographics should be able to pursue their want to portray history. As long as they’re upfront about how the actual history was/the barriers for people of different backgrounds that they represent, then the only other major thing that is to be accounted for is the passion they have for the time period and who they’re representing. 

Public reproductions of the history of Early America, especially in the American Revolution, is currently absent in its realness and its more riveting aspects, and there is an interesting way to utilize reenactments for educational purposes and a fuller, more vivid, understanding of the past. Lines of men fired at each other to start a new nation. People argued in halls and public buildings about the nature of freedom for all. In the fields of plantations and farms people were subjugated so the new nation and its inhabitants could profit. Many people lost their right to the land all together. So let’s put the bones of the past on display respectfully, and thoughtfully, so we can heal and better understand where we are in history and how we can impact it for the better.

Works Cited:

Smith, Clint. “What is Colonial Williamsburg For?” The Atlantic, 10 Oct. 2025. 

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/11/colonial-williamsburg-historical-accuracy/684330/?gift=owFbiPe2VNCHDL0JQHHZpmfkTshyyeZhdB-ejuhCtFA&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share.

Jeffrey Houser (Son of Liberty). “Revolutionary War Reenactment: Battle of Germantown 2015.” YouTube, 5 Oct. 2015.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCuHU6ll-io.

Brandon Fisichella. “First Person Battle of Monmouth 2018, Saturday’s Battle Part 2/2.” YouTube, 18 June 2018. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tOQ_La4yDM.

The Black Cockade. “The Battle of Brandywine Reenactment, 2022 | the Native Oak.” YouTube, 19 Oct. 2022.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq-wUvLotzA.

“Welcome to Zscaler Directory Authentication.” Livinghistoryarchive.com, 2025. 

www.livinghistoryarchive.com/article/guns-in-reenactment.

Brandon Fisichella. “How to Become a Reenactor.” YouTube, 30 Aug. 2024. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL3A0sDPqm8&list=PLGJcUwQ6H3BFV0Qd7Mh5pSV6nkkIE6vKG&index=2.

“Whaling Crew Diversity - Nantucket Historical Association.” Nantucket Historical Association, 24 Feb. 2022.

nha.org/research/nantucket-history/history-topics/whaling-crew-diversity/.

Library of Congress. “Religion and the American Revolution - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress).” Loc.gov, Library of Congress, 2019. 

www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html.

“Native Nations and the Revolutionary War.” Custom House Maritime Museum, 2 June 2025. 

customhousemaritimemuseum.org/rev-war-250/native-nations/.

“Pine St. African Burial Ground.” Kingston Land Trust, 25 Feb. 2021.

kingstonlandtrust.org/pine-street-african-burial-ground.

Kingston. “Burning of Kingston.” Burning of Kingston, 2025.

www.burningofkingston.com/schedule-of-events.

The Guardian. “America’s Largest Slave Revolt Brought back to Life.” YouTube, 14 Nov. 2019. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2to3S0iabE.

Bee Kanofsky

Rabbi Bottieger

FYSEM

10 March 2026

Declarations are Always First Drafts

As pens were pressed to paper on August 2nd 1776, the signers of the document were aware of what they were doing, well, the ones who were present as many would add their signatures to the document in coming months. Rarely had a country completely declared independence from its mother country, and they knew what the cost would be if they failed. The day of July 4th would go down in history since it was the day that the declaration was ratified. This moment in Philadelphia would turn the world upside down, rippling throughout history and echoing its words today.. Many have argued that this document was in effect the declared law of the land and that through the words of the signers they had stated what the country would look like. But it is not true. The document that is known as the Declaration of Independence was never intended to be the end all be all of the new nation’s look, but rather just a first draft. 

One element of the document which clearly infers its temporary foresight into the nation's birth can be found even before the document starts with the information, “In Congress, July 4, 1776”. This is a small detail that many overlook in discussions about the Declaration of Independence. But that small element is vital in its evaluation. The document was written just one year into the American Revolution and the Congress that had been convened wasn’t fully there for the original debating, drafting, and signing of the declaration; the reason being that many were stuck in colonies that were cut off from Congress due to British campaigns, some of the signers were actively fighting in the war and couldn’t take time off to be present for the process, and many were hesitant about it. Their hesitancy was valid for two specific reasons. One was that the punishment of rebelling against Great Britain was torture followed by execution. The second, and most relevant to the signers in the immediate signing, was that the war was looking to be unwinnable for the barely formed country. In fact, just a couple of months after the document was passed and shared with the public, General George Washington fumbled the battles of Long Island, Kipps Bay, Harlem Heights, Fort Washington, and White Plains in New York. A year later Congress was evacuated out of Philadelphia due to the approach of General William Howe’s troops occupying the city. In effect, what Congress had done was declared a hypothetical victory over the British before the fight had truly begun. But what the document did was set up an end goal for the new nation, a goal to reach once the war was won. Very few people believed that the war would be won easily, and hopes of that were dispelled after 5 years of fighting coming after the passing of the Declaration of Independence. The signers and writers of the declaration knew that in order for the country to win, they knew what they were fighting for. 

Another point that needs to be addressed is the governmental aspect of the piece. Many people criticize the Declaration of Independence for having little to set up what representation of the people would look like in the new American nation. To be fair, it is vague. But, it is vague for a reason. At the start of the conflict, many Colonists thought of the war as Boston’s affair. So, when the motion to write the declaration was passed in Congress, the caveat was that it had to be unanimous. If even one state said no, which South Carolina did multiple times due to the inclusion of a later scrapped paragraph in reference to the slave trade, the motion wouldn’t pass. It was all in effort to prevent a civil war that would threaten the country before it even started. However, the document does address the issue of its dated and more limited aspects in a way that vividly states its intentions, as said, “It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish (a destructive government) and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form.” (Jefferson, 1) Through that section the idea is given that what is being described is the starting off point. The pillars of the new nation would be derived from the support, and the power, or its citizens. It does not describe an executive branch, a judicial branch, or a congress. That would later be the work of the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution. This simply outlines what the country would look like if they could win the war, with the flexibility to alter it to the will of the people if they actually do win the conflict. If they were to write, “Just white anglo-saxon protestant men above the age of 30 who hold land can participate!” Then that would be hard for the people to reform if a law.

One key element in the document to note is who it is being written to. “To prove this (our intentions), let facts be submitted to a candid world.” (Jefferson, 2) This infers who the declaration’s audience is. They aren’t just speaking to the people of the rebelling colonies or just to their oppressors in Great Britain; they are also writing to appeal to the other countries of the world. Even though the founding fathers were hopeful for an American triumph over British forces, they knew they couldn’t do it alone. So when the declaration was published some of the first countries to receive it were France and Spain. Historically the two countries were persistent enemies and checks on British ambitions and during the 1750s declared war on the British which kickstarted the French and Indian War and the more broadly felt Seven Years War. If anyone were to aid the Americans in their attempt to fight the British, then it would be France and Spain. But previously before the document there was no motivation for the French and Spanish to aid the Americans. They had no idea why the Americans were revolting and to the two countries, who were both deeply in debt and clinging onto their colonies for dear life, a war against the British would sound risky and dangerous. The Declaration of Independence serves as a thesis for those countries, telling them what the Americans are fighting for and how fervently they desire freedom. The declaration appealed to many Europeans from Spain all the way to Poland, with one of the most famous being the young Marquis de Laffyette who became enamored with the country to the point where, after the war ended, he wrote a version for his country during its revolution with assistance from Thomas Jefferson himself. It was because of the efforts of Congress that France and Spain later joined in the war against the British turning the tide in the Americans favor. 

Detractors and critics of the Declaration of Independence insist often that its failed promises outweigh its ideals. In some ways they are correct. It is true that the people who signed the document were slaveholders and colonizers, it is true that they infringed on others people's freedoms and made the document near void in its promise. But at the end of the day, it is a goal. The goal was to keep on trying to provide for the people who seek shelter in America, it is a promise to make amends for our past wrongs and work towards a better future and it is the realization that we are a flawed nation with flawed people. It promises to be different from all the other nations that have come before it. One would be hard pressed to find a nation that is one for one the United States of America, and its inhabitants. Unlike a country with ancient roots and a monarchy, America and its citizens call for constant change and recognition of our goals and promises. 

The Declaration of Independence is a first draft document for what the signers envisioned as America, not its final version. After the signing of the document many of the people who wrote it went on to do great things. Some became future presidents of the new country like John Adams of Massachusetts and Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, some would go on to be part of Bard College's history like Philip Livingston of New York, some would become ubiquitous with corruption like Elbrdige Gerry (“Gerrymandering”) of Massachusetts, diplomats to allied nations like Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, some would live on to the 1830s like the last surviving signer Charles Carroll of Carrollton from Maryland, and others would die soon after its signing like Caesar Rodney of Delaware. The country that they wrote into existence would outlive all of the signers, it would grow beyond what they initially envisioned, and it is becoming more expansive in its population, more responsive to the whims and needs of its people, and looks for the best changes it can implement. We have a promise to create a more perfect union. 

Works Cited:

“Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen United States of America”, Thomas Jefferson. First Year Seminar Reader.

www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Bee Kanofsky

Professor Ali

The Ottoman Empire

11 March 2026

Unnerved but Ready for Death

When I read the letters from the Shah and the Sultan, I am immediately overcome by a sense of tenseness. Two great personalities, the Shah Ismail Safavi, and Selim the Grim; the leader of the Ottoman Empire and the once great Safavid Empire writing to each other in anticipation of battle. It was a fight that seemed destined to occur. The conflict wasn’t just one over land or money, but also over religion. While both nations primarily followed Islam, they were different in their following in the religion. 

The first player of the game in this war was Ismail Safavi, the Shah of the Safavid Empire. As stated, “Ismail Safavi emerged from concealment. In this blessed child, grandson of Sheikh Ciineyd on his father’s side and Uzun Hasan on his mother’s side, heir also to the defunct throne of Trebizond through his Christian grandmother - in this fortunate child appeared the avatar of Imam Ali, the manifestation of the Hidden Imam.” (Howard, 137). As a descendent of Ali and ruler of lands to the east, the Shah was in a predetermined position of strength through might and religion. The mindset that he was chosen not just for a political, but more so a divine reason would have surely been circulating in his thoughts as he put pen to paper and wrote to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Selim. In the correspondence reason would dictate that he should display his might and divine will. That is what is surprising to find in the correspondence little of the Quran mentioned within his writings, In fact his greeting indicates little to no animosity towards the Sultan who is challenging his rule. 

As Shah Ismail writes, “May his godly majesty, the refuge of Islam, the might of the kingdom, he upon whom God looks with favor, the champion of the sultanate and of the state, the hero of the faith and of the earth, Sultan Selim Shah (God grant him immortal state and eternal happiness!) accept this affectionate greeting and this friendly letter, considering it a token of our good will.” (Hasall, 4). One might think of this as a folly. Why wouldn’t the Shah want to come forth in his words beckoning for a fight? Why would he say well wishes to his enemy? Well, in a case where he is not the Shah or the prophesied Imam it would. But, he is the Shah and the prophesied Imam. When he doesn’t recite the Quran it is fully intentional. It is essentially saying to the Sultan that the Shah does not need to pray or incite God’s name to win, since God is already with him. It is a move of power that his opponent, Selim, would have felt deeply while reading the letter.

The Sultan, Selim the Grim, must have been tense when in correspondence with the Shah. Understandably so since the fate of the Islamic world hung on the shoulders of who controlled the Middle East. If the Ottoman Empire under Selim would win then they would be the most powerful empire that could feasibly challenge mainland Europe and influence Asia beyond the Levant. But if the Safavid Empire won, then Ottoman ambitions would be checked. That is why, it is reported that in the run up to this campaign, Selim advertised the war not just as one for territorial gain but one on behalf of Islam. As recounted, “In a celebrated correspondence, the ‘holy people, religious scholars, and jurisprudents’ in Selim’s employ coolly countered the impudent witticisms of Shah Ismail’s poets. They did not mask their disdain for the Kızılbaş, who flouted ‘the law and tradition of our Prophet’ with their ‘sinful practices forbidden by God,’” (Howard, 137). This was a strategy that would then carry over to the correspondence between him and Selim. He needed to display his strength and power through his letters.

The words that Sultan Selim begins is a complete parallel to his advisory. While Ismail greets him warmly, Selim invokes a passage of the holy texts. Selim writes, “‘It is from Solomon and it is: 'In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Rise not up against me, but come to me in surrender.'[Quran 27:30-31]” (Hasall, 1). This is essentially a threat right out from the gate, disguised as a citing of the text. If one invokes the name of God against an opponent it is essentially saying that the opponent is not protected by God and that the victors, presumably the writers, are in God’s favor. What amplifies the intensity of the sentiment is it being written to Ismail, an imam. This is not just a threat, it is psychological warfare that I can only assume did not work based on the reply, from before, of Ismail. 

Although the date is not noted for Ismail’s letter, it is safe to assume this is how he would have reacted to correspondence just like the letter from Selim. While reading the two letters I got a sense of the two leaders who wrote them. The Shah outshines the Sultan when it comes to the factor that matters most in the context of the letters, fear and intimidation. 

The Sultan was scared while he wrote this letter. Although he talks big and later acts on what he says, a strong leader would not feel the need to recite the holy texts to an enemy that knows the texts well. The letter that the Sultan wrote is not someone who is confident of victory, but rather scared of defeat. As Selim writes in the end portion of his letter, “‘To God belongs the command before and after, and on that day the believers shall rejoice.’ [Quran 30:4] ‘So the last roots of the people who did evil were cut off, Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds.’ [Quran 6:45]” (Hasall, 4). He is scared that his ambitions are checked by this accomplished dynasty, he is scared that his forces won’t prevail without the will of God, but above all he is scared that the Shah will see through his words.

Meanwhile, the Shah writes as a person who is strong not just by their own words, but in their will too. He doesn’t need to threaten the Sultan the whole length of the letter. Instead, by showing ease through his words it plays to the Shah’s advantage, showing a ruler that is confident in themself and in their ability to lead. The Shah doesn’t incite God alone, he incites his own character. In the last part of his letter to Selim he cites the Quran in a departure from the bulk of his letter, “Bitter experience has taught that in this world of trial, He who falls upon the house of `Ali always falls. Kindly give our ambassador leave to travel unmolested. ‘No soul laden bears the load of another.’ [Quran 6:164; 53:38] When war becomes inevitable, hesitation and delay must be set aside, and one must think on that which is to come. Farewell.” (Hasall, 5). This moment doesn’t come as a fully capitalized, “BE AFRAID” that Selim’s letter gave in its substance, but more so a punctuated threat that comes through as a last ditch warning to the Sultan.

Regardless of their thoughts, their strategies, or their psychological tactics and aims, history would come to find that Selim would be victorious, and Ismail would crumble as his empire would. The Ottomans would take to the field and win as they had done in decades before and decades to come. I can imagine how each received the letters. They would have, in confidence, been braving themselves for the fight to come. A battle is brutal even on the smallest scale. But these two would need to secure their empires and therein secure their places in history. A Shah and Sultan may have been unnerved, but both were- by their own words, ready to die for a chance at victory, and assured that God would grant it to them. 

Works Cited:

Hassall, Paul. “FROM: THE LETTERS OF OTTOMAN SULTAN SELIM I and SAFAVID SHAH ISMAIL I.” 1998.

Howard, Douglas A. A History of the Ottoman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 

Bee Kanofsky

Professor Ali

The Ottoman Empire

27 April 2026

Elephant Justice

A girl giving birth to an elephant may be a bizarre story to find in a historical record, especially one from the records of Evliya Çelebi, a traveller from the Ottoman Empire. Entitled, fittingly, “The Girl Who Gave Birth to an Elephant”, the question that comes up instinctively is to assert whether the story is true or not. But, given its nature, it is most likely a work of fiction, humor, and a story meant to shock its audience. If it is taken at face value that is all it is and remains. But, if one looks closely at the text, they can find the cultural residue of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, through the story of, is shown to be a politie that concerns itself with reason, justice, and the benefit of the doubt. 

The story begins first with the news of the elephant's birth, and subsequent death, being relayed to both Evliya Çelebi and the Pasha of Sivas, Silihdar Murtaza. They are also brought the corpse as a confirmation of the story. Instead of laughing it off, or condemning the mention of an event, Murtaza Pasha commands Çelebi to find the ones who committed the acts and to punish them promptly. But the traveller, unsure of himself and the situation, says to Murtaza Pasha, “But the one who has committed this deed is the Free-choosing Actor, the Lord of the Worlds. He has done this in order to manifest His creative wisdom. Whom should I punish?” (Çelebi, 97).There is an element of humility that is displayed by Çelebi which stands in as the system he represents. The Ottoman System built itself on regional, religious, and cultural acceptance. Even though some groups of the empire might have considered the story blasphemous, Çelebi views it through his own religious beliefs to meet in the middle between the miraculous and the mundane. With that mindset he felt that he could judge who was punished tangibly, with the caveat that the divine or the unknown might be a factor with the case he was told to judge. 

Then as the companions of the pasha inspected the corpse, they began to claim the damages that the elephant’s murder would incur. As written by Çelebi on the reactions of the companions, “‘God be praised, my lord,’ they said. ‘You should exact 10,000 guruş from the person who smothered this innocent baby elephant, and 40,000 or 50,000 from the girl who bore it and from her parents.’” (97). This is another example of the Ottoman Empire’s justice system at work. While it may seem insensitive to say outright the expense damages of the muder, it does show that the companions were thinking first and foremost of the trial of the case. If there was to be a case, and justice for anyone, they would need either a bail amount set for the accused parties, or the money to be paid to the court for holding a trial. It would also indicate to the parties involved that there not only was stake to the case if they lost, but simultaneously compensation for them if they were to be proven innocent. 

On the subject of the trial, it begins with the person centermost to the murder of the baby elephant. As written in the text, “The first to be questioned was the girl who had given birth to the elephant.” (Çelebi, 98). This is a striking level of trust from the court. An Ottoman court, as shown, takes the claims of the defendants and the accused of a case seriously by giving them opportunity to speak on behalf of their case. While some might argue a lawyer would be more capable of arguing the case, the idea that they would trust the parties of the case to appeal to the court shows a level of trust in the involvement and integrity of the Ottoman Empire’s citizens. That trust was integral for the people of the empire feeling safe and secure in its legal systems despite downsides or faults that might have eventually shown themselves. 

Once the young girl explains what happened, the case appears to have been appealed to not just the court but simultaneously the people of the area too. As written by Çelebi, “When she made this plea all the people of Turhal and Eynebazar and Kazova testified that it was so. Murtaza Pasha clapped the seventy individuals in chains and, keeping them confined for twenty days, got 20,000 guruş out of them.” (98). As indicated by the text, issues of the court were also deeply issues of the populace. Not only are they aware of the case, but seemingly influence it indirectly. Justice is something that involves not just the parties of the case. It involves the whole community since the whole community, as understood by the Ottoman authorities, would be involved by the results of the trial. 

Thus concluded the story with a short afterword by Çelebi. He summarizes what had happened, noting, “These events occurred as I witnessed them, by divine mystery. God is capable of everything (2:20).” (Çelebi, 98). He accepted the divine, what had happened, and what he would not be capable of knowing. Who knows, maybe this did happen, or maybe he was telling a story just because he was human, and humans love telling stories. But regardless, he left a relic behind in the story of the girl and the elephant, and if one reads between the lines they not only get a glimpse into the justice system of the Ottoman Empire, but simultaneously get a glimpse into what formed the glue of its people, politics, and successes. 

Works Cited:

Dankoff, Robert, and Sooyong Kim. An Ottoman Traveller: Selections from the Book of the Travels of Evliya Çelebi. London: Eland Publishing Limited, 2011.

Bee Kanofsky

Rabbi Bottieger

FYSEM

10 May 2026

No Labels, Please.

When we think of comfort, the thing that may come to one’s mind is the idea of knowing. We love to know who we are, where we are from, and overall, our unique identities. For example, when someone breaks the ice in a conversation, the way it manifests is by stating who they are as a person. This is oftentimes more for the people around that person than necessarily themselves. For many, nothing is quite as frightening as not knowing someone’s own label. There is a feeling of fear when a person looks at another human being, without a precise word to describe who that person is. Added onto that are people in the modern day who wear their labels, or more accurately, identities, like a badge of honor on their chest. To their credit, the act can be a reclamation in different cases, such as the word being originally derogatory, and then reclaimed through its usage. But there is a danger to using a label at all. A label is a limit. It is a way to make a person comfortable with a concept or person they aren’t familiar with, and to simplify it down to a single idea. 

The two sources for this argument will come from two works that delve into the idea of labels, identities, and limitations. First will be Layli Long Soldier’s poetry collection, Whereas. The collection grapples with Native American history, specifically that of the Lakota Nation, and Soldier’s connection to the land that was taken from her people by the government. The second piece that will be explored is Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. It is a novel that delves into the life of an unnamed African-American man, who is pushed around by the world and, in return, tries to push back in the ways society allows him to. 

Layli Long Soldier both shows us what the label does in its most literal form: limit. As she wrote, “This is how you see me, the space in which to place me” (Soldier, 8). This is a very small poem in relation to the page it is placed on. It evokes the idea of a reservation, where the Lakota were imprisoned while their land was taken. At the time, white colonizers were suspicious and fearful of what the Lakota were doing without the government watching them. So a reservation was a way to watch over the Lakota. Not to help the Lakota, but to make white settlers more comfortable settling the land that had once belonged to the native peoples, and to make them submit to the United States. Layli Long Soldier tells us this is the space in which to place her to remind us of how we limited the expression and freedoms of her people. We made them limited in what they could be. 

Well, the question becomes, what would she say?

She presents herself quietly through the lines of the poems.  As she writes, “I don’t trust anybody but the land I said” (Soldier, 32) and “this grassshhhh shhhh who I’ve become” (Soldier, 33). She is a wild and whimsical person. She is a person who knows her roots, knows her people, and seeks to connect to the ties that were broken over decades of oppression. She is a person who appreciates the land that she and her ancestors live on because it was central to their lives and existence. She is also a person who has wit and humor, which both softens the blows of these revelations for the audience while also becoming a poignant emotional whiplash to keep the audience’s attention. 

The ending of Whereas exemplifies her humorous wit, with it being an homage and a rebuttal to the 2009 apology from the U.S. government in which they attempted to apologize for the Native American genocides they committed, with the caveat that they legally wouldn’t be required to give reparations based on the apology. As Layli Long Soldier writes, “Nothing in this book- (1) authorizes or supports any claim against Layli Long Soldier by the United States; or (2) serves as a settlement of any claim against Layli Long Soldier by the United States, here in the grassesgrassesgrasses.” (101). That is a biting, humorous, and remarkable critique. That comes from a writer who has experienced pain through her people, love through her life, and a connection to the earth.

Can that experience be summarized through a label?

The idea of the label is that if someone can’t understand a concept, then the concept will have to be more conveniently named. That prevents a fundamental connection. Once the label is clearly named, the person uses it as information. The term informs the person that the most important aspect to another human being is the labels that they have placed on themself. Yes, there may be concepts in our lives and in our words, but at the end of the day, we are people. Layli Long Soldier is a poet, born of and from the Oglala Lakota Nation, but to herself she is Layli. Free, curious, and empowered, Layli. 

In activist circles, labels become identifiers of who is qualified to speak on specific viewpoints. That is understandable, since experience is the best place to speak from on a topic. But that qualification may make a person become a spokesperson, to become the chosen representative for a group of people. This is what happens in Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man. In the book, the Invisible Man wants to become an orator, and later in life gets the opportunity by joining the Brotherhood, an implied socialist organization that equates everyone to the term “Brother.” That is how each of them addresses each other, and they take pride in it. At one rally, the Invisible Man and an associate, Brother Clifton, encounter a black nationalist by the name of Ras, who refuses to fight them because they’re all black, but simultaneously hates them for siding with the Brotherhood. As Ellison writes for Ras, “You my brother, mahn. Brothers are the same color; how the hell you call these white men brother?” (370). The Invisible Man, as throughout much of the book, becomes once again transformed in the eyes of others from a person to an idea. He becomes the personification of the Brotherhood in the eyes of Ras, this well-meaning but misguided force that ultimately works against African-American liberation, while to the Brotherhood, the Invisible Man becomes a figurehead and a shield from the backlash of Ras, and is propped up to be both Harlem’s icon and punching bag. 

When the Invisible Man fully comes to this realization, he becomes existential, understandably so, understanding his life as just a summary. He’s called Brother, boy, among many other phrases derogatory and otherwise. Yet he was never called his name, his real name. What does the character know of his lived experiences? We know that he has struggled and clawed his way to live the life that he ended up with. But the people who talk to him only see him artificially. Through that, he was made invisible. 

So in order to live with himself and his disadvantage, he needed to put everything he went through in perspective to his invisibility. As written in The Invisible Man, “... I saw that they were more than separate experiences. They were me; they defined me.” (Ellison, 504). He became, in his own eyes, the sum of his experiences. A beaten and bruised person, but a person who would not back down from his goals. He saw himself as invisible in circumstance, but powerful in his being and his existence. We take in so much as human beings, absorbing our surroundings, which ultimately inform our paths and how we interact with the world. We are trees, with rings of stories building us up. After this story, the Invisible Man says he’ll go back into the world, however it has changed, and go from there. 

That is a realistic ending and more so one that embraces change. Maybe he will be seen as his name, maybe someone will ask him who he really is, and learn what we as the readers have learned through the duration of this book. He is a tapestry in the making, and that is a beautiful, sacred thing to be. 

Some may argue that a label is important because a person can take pride in it and better understand themself in relation to the world. It is validated in some aspects, such as in adolescence, when one might experiment with gender and sexuality. It is a natural thing in life and something that informs how we see ourselves. But that would happen regardless of one's ability to define their experiences. In addition to that, there is a crucial problem. Humans are constantly growing and curious creatures. We love to see what's beyond the limits of ourselves and the world, and a label is not compatible or cooperative with that. Identities are subject to change, maturing, and complexity. If someone realizes that their identity has shifted, changed, or that they don’t want a certain label, then it is oftentimes seen as a person who was only pretending to inhabit the label, when they may have just been exploring what is unknown to them and to their experience. 

Personally, I have experienced labels for about 19 years so far in my lifetime and can say that I find myself in Layli Long Soldier’s poetry collection and Ralph Ellison’s book precisely because of those experiences. I am a person, like Layli, who wants to connect to her people, to the earth, and to a greater history that came before her. I am a person who, like Ellison’s Invisible Man, finds himself in the conversation without his name being said. When I look between the lines, I see people, characters, and writers who struggle with themselves, their born identities, and the weight that comes with a label. For Layli Long Soldier, it is “Native American”. For Ralph Ellison, it is “Black”. These experiences would be completely unconnected to me based solely on those words. But, on a human level, on this vibrant human, lived in experience, I can understand their joys, pains, triumphs, and discoveries. 

There is a limitation to placing oneself in a single word. It prevents a person from being truly known and reduces them to an archetype. When I write this, I am Bee. I am Bee Kanofsky, a person who has learned a lot and still needs to learn some more. I love learning about other people's religions, about who they are, and where they come from. So when I want to know someone, I don’t ask what they are. I ask who they are and what they have learned in life. Life is as limitless as an unlabeled concept. Life is as limitless as a human being. 

Works Cited:

Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. Vintage International, 1995.

Long Soldier, Layli. Whereas. Graywolf Press. 2017.