Skip to content

Service Project Ideas for Helping the Homeless

If you really want to use your service project to help the homeless, then consider doing the following: Make a List About YOU: Make a list of all of the key characteristics that describe you, right now, as a person. Try to make it as exhaustive as possible. What categories do you fit into? For […]

via Service Project Ideas: Helping the Homeless — Adora Myers

On the Turning Away

Book Review: Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450 by I.M.W. Harvey

Jack Cade's Rebellion of 1450Jack Cade’s Rebellion of 1450 by I. M. W. Harvey
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

[Originally published on Goodreads, Apr 24, 2013.]

It seems history has been unkind to Jack Cade. Harvey’s book, while a corrective reading vs. William Shakespeare’s
King Henry VI, Part Two
, has a lot to do with the economic and political conditions of the time, but the juicy stuff–the revolt and who participated in it, and the details of what occurred (beyond a general outline of events), is sort of lost to history, although we have names on pardon rolls that Harvey does not reproduce, although she refers to them numerous times. As an Occupy and homeless activist, I was very interested in learning more for dramatic purposes, but it seems like a lot would have to be made up, or else do it in the style of 1920s Eisenstein using the “group protagonist” concept.

Harvey’s writing is not good. It is dry and informative, but it’s a challenge to read for the wrong reasons and reveals how different I, as an English major, am from a history major. Often, I would have to read one of Harvey’s sentences multiple times because she punctuates so poorly that one has trouble finding the subject of the sentence. She very frequently starts of a sentence with a prepositional phrase, but neglects to set it off with a comma. Throw in a few adjectives (some that could be nouns in other contexts) before the subject noun, and we have a mess that needs unraveling. Apparently, she is of the school that commas slow the reader down and make things boring, when the reality is that commas guide the reader from place to place so that they don’t have to reread your sentence 3 to 4 times to understand how you mean it because you didn’t give it the appropriate structure.

As far as the material, we learn that there was a great depression in the cloth industry, and people who were once making good money manufacturing cloth were losing jobs and money to trading fine cloth to Italy for cheap trinkets.

There is not enough in the historical record to really learn who Cade was. He left the country in December 1448 and returned in December 1449. Rumor has it that he murdered a pregnant woman, but it seems strange, given all the surviving legal papers of that time that make up the primary sources for this book, that such an explanation has any truth. Another claim is that Cade was a doctor who dressed in scarlet. It is known that John Cade was a vassal of Thomas Dacre and that he was forced off the land and out of the country, but there are no records as to why. The scene in Shakespeare in which Cade declares himself Lord Mortimer on London bridge is not part of Harvey’s history, although she does record that Cade was pardoned when authorities believed that his name was John Mortimer, and the pardon was redacted when they learned that it was John Cade. The most interesting chapter is the penultimate one, which deals with Cade’s undercaptains and how they led smaller rebellions in the following years. Many of them shared the same fate as Cade–hanged, drawn, and quartered.

Harvey never mentions Shakespeare’s play, nor does she ever make a direct comparison to what happens in the play vs. reality. James Fiennes, Lord Saye and Sele, is portrayed as an innocent by Shakespeare, but he and his cronies (including one confusingly named John Say–the book deals with a startlingly high number of people named Thomas), are clearly in the historical record as bona fide extortionists. Richard, Duke of York, is presented as a reformer, and although the rebels despised Henry VI’s coterie, they thought pious Henry was well-intentioned and needed to be dethroned for not governing well but not killed, unlike William de la Pole, the Duke of Suffolk, the Duke of Somerset, and various others. In addition, the literacy issue in the play is an element of the Wat Tyler rebellion of 1381, and has nothing to do with the set of demands that is reproduced in the original Middle English in the appendix–indeed, Harvey notes that Cade and the rebel leaders were clearly literate men with legitimate demands, even if they were quashed by lords drunk with power. Harvey’s selected reading notes that Katharine de la Pole, an abbess and sister of William, was on the pardon list, but believes that she was not involved in the rebellion, although it would be interesting to learn more about why she may have been on the list beyond the safeguard Harvey hypothesizes. The problem is that we just can’t know.

The copy of this book that I received through interlibrary loan belongs to General Theological Seminary of New York City. Oddly, the book was bound upside down. In one of the Arden Shakespeare 2 Henry VI footnotes dealing with the literacy issue that Shakespeare conflated from the Wat Tyler rebellion, it is mentioned that a man tried to get a clerical pardon by memorizing the Vulgate of Psalm 51:1. The judge knew that the man could not read at all, let alone Latin (a major issue is made in the book that it was illegal to have the scriptures in English, an element of the Lollard rebellion), and presented the book to him upside down. When he noted nothing amiss, he was tried as a commoner and executed for his crime. Having not seen another copy of this book, I don’t know if it happened to a significant portion of the print run, but the irony that it would happen to this particular book is uncanny.

View all my reviews

More Censorious Bullshit from @Twitter

Tweet 1 of 2

Scott A Hutchins
@_harry_tuttle_ @leslieleeiii @VerbotenPublish His attitude is become a capitalist or die.
If you feel that your account has been locked in error, you can appeal by contacting our support team here.
Tweet 2 of 2

Scott A Hutchins
@Thetownlybomb @leslieleeiii Scum like @VerbotenPublish believe in punishing the educated with massive debt and subminimum wage physical labor.
If you feel that your account has been locked in error, you can appeal by contacting our support team here.
Again, no rational, reasonable human being could object to my tweets, but not this:

@Twitter Loves Censorship and Real Abuse

Twitter has refused to honor my <a href=””>appeals to allow my tweets to stand</a>, insisting that they are abusive.


Tweet 2 of 5

Scott A Hutchins
What a proud liar!
If you feel that your account has been locked in error, you can appeal by contacting our support team here.
Tweet 3 of 5

Scott A Hutchins
God, this guy is stupid!
If you feel that your account has been locked in error, you can appeal by contacting our support team here.
Tweet 4 of 5

Scott A Hutchins
@VerbotenPublish In the eyes of an idiot.
If you feel that your account has been locked in error, you can appeal by contacting our support team here.
Tweet 5 of 5

Scott A Hutchins
@almightyk9 @RickyBobby_USA @maiabdulrahman @silentboomer @KronzieTech @CarolJo44 @king_of_bob @GodRA_Protector @JillianReeseArt @alllibertynews @bruyereclogg @raopal @raiderman108 @PanicdXpressive @HLRowe1 @Scepticism2017 @MrBlack_n_Right @ACTNOW2015 @pulwama1990 @Jeff888888 @5PriscillaKing @chatttylady @LastSamuraiRaub @LHwandering @zanozapro @Conneazy2016 @Coufreyrac @MorpheusRage @marcelaluqu @AnneMoose1 @davidtilburyfl @Masterwang @Galt_in_Da_Box @100million5 @nicholaswolfson @ScaliaLawSchool @annenortonnow @NoLeftTurn2 @josh__gesell @LivePatriot @LMPSEBRING @marymuldoon558 @Revive71 @melmcq1 @MuncTomm @AboutOurVote @Donaldtfoster @geinar_geinar @suejonessays @VerbotenPublish says, “The person who poisons the environment for a profit is morally superior to the disabled person who can’t work.”
If you feel that your account has been locked in error, you can appeal by contacting our support team here.
Scott A Hutchins
What happened?
We determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules, so we had temporarily limited some of your account features. Learn more.
Your account is now fully functional. Please note that further violations of the Twitter Rules may result in the permanent suspension of your account.
I maintain that no one in his or her right mine can find any of the above tweets “abusive” while finding the below tweet broke no rules:
capitalisttorture <>

Jul 23 (8 days ago)
to me


Thank you for reporting this issue to us. Our goal is to create a safe environment for everyone on Twitter to express themselves freely.

We reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of Twitter’s Rules regarding abusive behavior (

However, if this person has Tweeted additional content toward you that you find abusive after you filed this original report, or if there’s additional context you think we need to know about regarding this situation –– please reply to this email and provide us with further details, including links to any additional Tweets.

In the meantime, here are some actions you can take to make your Twitter experience safer:

You can learn more about how to stay safe on Twitter by visiting the Twitter Safety Center (

Thank you again for reporting this issue to us. Reports like this help us identify issues, making your communities and Twitter better.


@twitter Has a Far-Right Bias

Only an extreme-right site would consider this tweet acceptable and demand as a provision of unlocking my account that I delete a tweet that says “What a proud liar!” with a link to this tweet: “#Capitalism addresses #poverty; socialism diminishes capitalism’s effects and exploits the weakness left in its wake.”

This is the second of five tweets that Twitter has demanded I delete before unlocking my account. The first linked to @VerbotenPublish’s statement that I should submit to torture and called him a “psychopath.” No rational person thinks that it is wrong for me to call someone calling for my torture a “psychopath.” According to an e-mail to me from Twitter on July 23, “We reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of Twitter’s Rules ( regarding abusive behavior” in @VerbotenPublish calling for my torture.

I cannot see the other three tweets that Twitter has decided are harassing until I delete the above tweet. I have contacted Twitter numerous times saying that this is unreasonable censorship, but as this is the weekend, I have yet to get a reply. I have also asked them to restore my first tweet calling @VerbotenPublish a psychopath.

Here is the full thread. He said that since desk jobs haven’t worked out for me, I should look beyond desk jobs despite his having been informed of my medical limitation.

I have also been constantly harassed by strangers who refuse to accept that I am medically limited to a desk job: . They want me in work that, if I could do it at all, would be unsustainable for the length of a shift, and cause insurance problems for a potential employer, hence why @VerbotenPublish suggested a job at which I would not have an employer, collecting bottles. Considering the toll that the door-knocking for petitions to get on the ballot for New York City Council took on my body while using a cane that seemed to give me a cyst in my finger just to make me able to go as long as I did, I have lived their buffoonery.

It is impossible for an ethical person to approve of calling for someone’s torture and call responses of “psychopath” and “liar” “harassment.” I am entirely in the right, and Twitter and @VerbotenPublish are entirely in the wrong. No ethical person disagrees with me on this matter.

Because my Medium account is linked to my Twitter account, I can’t even log into Medium to expand the reach of this blog entry. This is corporate terrorism.

When did the Poor become Deserving or Undeserving?

Legal History Miscellany

Posted by Sara M. Butler; 20 February 2017.

The economic crisis that dominated the Tudor era was wrought by a combination of factors: explosive population growth (roughly 2.4 million in 1525, to 4.5 million in 1600),[1] increasing levels of inflation that far outstripped rising wages, escalating foreign demand for English wool and its sinister twin the enclosure movement, as well as the elimination of social welfare institutions with the Henrician government’s dissolution of the monasteries. Paul Slack’s categorization of poverty into “deep” and “shallow” offers a useful understanding of how dire the circumstances became: while deep poverty (the chronic nature of structural poverty leading to the multitude of paupers and vagrants) rose until about the year 1620, shallow poverty (that is, the numbers of those who temporarily succumb to deteriorating livelihoods, and often the more distressing sign of calamitous financial hardship) increased gradually from the early sixteenth century until…

View original post 1,476 more words