at's a really interesting question now in the case of the nations in British Columbia they seem to have managed to sort of not wash their dirty laundry in public so whatever might have been going on in terms of contestations there's still a unified thing which is the nation and Aboriginal title is about collective rights there's sort of no individual Indians at all it's the collective that is given title or given rights if that's what the court decides and I think that's partly because in most of British Columbia well there weren't treaties way back and there were some reserves but the whole reserve system didn't work the same way as it did in eastern Canada in places like Ontario and Quebec where there's some nations that are really contesting how the Indian act decides who is the leader there's sort of situations of dual power for instance some of the reservations outside of Montreal there's the official chief elected under the Indian act and then there's what are called the traditionalist and they have their own group and their own council and I think in that case it would be awfully hard for the government to know who to negotiate with I mean they'd be obliged to negotiate with the officially elected chief but there are some sort of dual power situations but as I said in British Columbia I'm not from British Columbia I don't know that much about the politics there but it seems to me that in all of the cases I've seen the traditional you know chiefs which are usually hereditary chiefs are acknowledged as the chiefs both by themselves and by the government so the issue doesn't really seem to arise there I don't know I mean I have to know more more about the specific cases but in the cases of you know the British Columbia you know nations the hereditary chief is the chief for purposes of dealing with the government unlike in eastern Canada as I said in which the the hereditary and you know traditional systems were destroyed by the Indian Act and you know any of the tribes that had matrilineal systems were forced to adopt the sort of election of a chief in a kind of more sort of traditional western way so A question about the recognition of alternative epistemologies for both Newt Mariana and Paul how much purchase do you think the alternative epistemology will turn out to have especially if the issues of the Aboriginal are more managed through the honor of the Crown doctor the whole emotion and the trust relationships we should use a very practical paternal substance so is this ultimately going to be the kind of co-optation in the duty to consult on natural resource exploitation that we saw from succession trees in the American experience that a lot of money was paid to the various tribes for huge tracts in succession trees but clearly it wasn't a vehicle to access to political and legal power and that's for you and that's for Paul and we had a chance yet to look at charity sources for example the charity newspaper which was in production before the Trail of Tears and more recently Robert Connolly's history of the charities which was commissioned by the charity nation somewhere earlier in our Strictly's Minecraft on charity history which was also commissioned by the charity nation and which both Connolly and Strictly tried to draw on fragmentary oral tradition evidence to speculate about how the charities experienced the whole series and process of the succession trees and shared the movement say well fast yeah very briefly the duty to consult cases don't decide anything and push the government into specific negotiations and so each of them is different and some nations have more political savvy and power than others but in I think pretty much all of the cases that are ongoing or have been all the treaties or agreements that have been reached it isn't just money it's money and power so for instance the Haya Nation has the system of co-governance for this huge area that used to be a national park and even what it's called now is sort of in question because for the Haya it's not some nature reserve in many cases they have the right to co-manage with the government the natural resources so they're not these aren't like the old treaties where the aboriginal nations are bought off with money and that was that so there is political power being achieved but it's completely different in each kind of situation and negotiations don't go on in public it's not like a court case right so you don't necessarily know what was proposed and why they decided what they did and all of that but the natural resource companies are absolutely up in arms like just going on about how no one's house is safe and I mean in British Columbia this is like the issue of the day no I'm not, I'd like to I've read Deborah Rosen has written a number of works in this area it's been really helpful but I'd like to Ariela? Who's next? This is also for her call there were other John's other I was thinking about the chronological movement backing up from that you know turn of the century moment when we're used to thinking about you have some parallelism and that for that period which is the one where I'm in the most about it you can really see parallels in with federal policies towards the internal colonialism and then and then external in terms of land practices and the relationship to race you can see some of the same things that they're doing in Indian territory going on when they go to Kauai and and I was trying to think for the earlier period whether he saw whether there were of those connections that you notice or they might be thinking about and I don't know whether that would be in terms of I don't know but just thinking about geographically or with different groups whether you're finding any of those parallels maybe through the Mexican war or because one of the things I think that is to do the kind of integration that John's talking about right will involve looking at the ways these practices are you know getting reiterated in these different things probably in different ways but it was hard for me to think of examples in the earlier period it's a good question one of the arguments I'm hesitating in part because the parallels right now that are easier for me to make are between the early period and the more recent modern period so in my knowledge of the 1890s is Eric Love has a new book on Hawaii which is really good and Julian Go also has a book on the Philippines so this first set of work out there still making sense of one thing I think that interesting I don't know if this will answer the question directly or not but one thing I think is interesting about Empires is there's a constant combination of democratic aspirations and conquering that both get intertwined throughout this and it seems to be exciting also to study Liberia Liberia is a humanistic the idea of a humanistic endeavor the discussion about indigenous tribes is a combination of that the discussion of Iraq if you take George Bush at his word is a combination of that and even to laugh at George Bush we had Samantha Power and others who at least before the war thought about these ideas of humanitarian missions so I think one of the things that's interesting and guiding behind this and lurking behind this is the democratic elements of American law there are multiple sides of the American legal tradition that confused together when it comes to empire and can support the promotion of expansion because both sides have a desire for very different reasons have a desire to enter into new territories and to claim those territories and have them cool go ahead so a really quick response to that to come back to something Bob said which is about Morris Coen and poverty and sovereignty is just thinking I think about the land policies and that combination that you're talking about because so much of federal Indian policies have a lot which was one of the strategies for the southeastern tribes and then of course it's much more widely used later in the 19th century but we'll make you a citizen you'll get your individual pot of land you'll be a human farmer this is a great ideal for everyone of course we're also going to extinguish your governmental powers your sovereignty we're going to transform all your sovereignty into property property that's great sovereignty for Ghana but if I think there's something really also productive there thinking about that combination to add on that you see debates about that international force now with the Brazilian rainforest where US companies went in made these property issues and then the sovereignty disappears it becomes property battles between people who own land and American corporations but by putting it around that debate international courts are heavily influenced American a variety of American ideals really pushes it very far in one direction John did you want to say something no I just realized I cut you off alright so I have a question all of the papers I think explicitly are implicitly dealing with this idea that epistemology is the form of the state of sovereignty whether this is a logical choice determines how the sovereignty goes sort of responding to John's point that it's hard to situate legal history institutionally but one of the places where it's very clearly situated aren't all these land rights battles and I've litigated a number of these cases many Mexican land grants in the southwest and we always have this problem of well is the court going to like the ethical evidence better or are they going to like the classic legal evidence better and we've been much more successful with arguing with the fruct and French law that we have customary law so in southern Colorado the big land rights case came to the Colorado Street Court in 2002 and essentially it involved raising rights on former common lands of a Mexican land grant and it was now occupied by ski resort the only ski resort did not want people to raise their cattle on the ski resort even though we offered to say when you only use the ski resort in the winter maybe we could raise our cattle in the summer but they didn't want that they wanted to speak in terms of the simple so the ethical evidence that was presented was essentially a custom was rejected as its remnants of prescription was rejected wasn't considered easy enough to verify but they liked the court Colorado Street Court decided our favor because we presented all these arguments under the treaty of Guadalamo guarantee property rights and of course property as understood in 1848 included Roman law and French law useful and so that worked and so you know you raise this line with interesting ethical questions right in order to get their rights the people on this grant had to sort of use a common law common law and civil law a European construct right but they did it in order to win so are they abandoning sovereignty or not I mean that's a very open question but I think it's interesting with legal history one of the ways one of the ways that you can argue your students of legal history is relevant is you can say look there are these cases that are going on all over the United States all over the world including Newport Bay that's how Newport Bay was kept out of development by reference to Spanish law the islands were considered the equivalent of the trust under Spanish law so these are sort of back and forth issues but I think that's sort of for lawyers epistemological choices kind of determines to some extent your choice of how you're going to work with with sovereignty where sovereignty is going to Roy? This is for Laura and Mariana and it's a question about tone and the sort of tone is a big patriarchy so it seems like both of you are talking about possibilities for very reductive something good out of the paper and for Mariana you're saying at times it seems like there's going to be more to be had by relying on this sort of paper up in the bottom of the crown using it strategically but then you seem to be very ironic about those possibilities and Laura you seem to be sort of nostalgic about the patriarchy at certain times especially when you say that I find it really hard to say I'm nostalgic for slavery okay so that would be so let me take a very specific example of something which is when rights and rights discourse becomes more more the order of legality that heightens inequality so now I'm talking about tone I don't think that you're nostalgic for actual slavery that's definitely not the point but I'm trying to get at it is what the is what are the attitudes about the piece that come out of the tone writing about it and I thought that the two of you could actually sort of I think it's really easy to slip into a narrative progression or declension and so we want to see something and generally that's how these tales are told we either have a progression towards more rights or we have a critique of rights where rights somehow that's bad it's the liberal society somehow produces more inequalities and I don't know that that is a good narrative to fall into if I always tell my undergraduates the progression declension narrative if you find yourself using progress or things get better then that's the point where you need to step back and think about the frameworks that you're using and what I would like to suggest here is that we need to think critically about the narrative of rights and that has been used I think fairly uncritically in some ways when we talk about the extension of rights to people as if somehow extending rights is the answer I got myself out with it and this is a good thing and I think that that narrative is based on some assumptions we make about how we tell that story the founding places where we start the idea that somehow these people have no rights then you have rights over time and that's a good thing if you retell that story in a way that talks about a different kind of legal system a very different logic where it confounds some of the things we associate with rights like inclusion within the legal system people are included that's not necessarily a good thing if you're African American and you're in the South and you're included in the legal system that means you're included to be regulated so to be excluded then when you don't have rights also takes on different meanings it's a more complicated story here and one that also I think causes us to sit back and think about the meanings we attach to rights and we all know that rights in and of themselves can also be about exclusions of patriarchy's right and property that's what it's about it's rights that are establishing who has things who don't it establishes inequalities and if you think about rights in those terms then you think about extending rights to people you have a much more complicated history and that's what I want to emphasize less that ooh patriarchy is good because it included people and more to think about absolutely that rights are problematic and it's the meanings you attach to them and not just the granting of them so I want to complicate both sides of that story and I think sometimes when people assume that I'm saying that patriarchy is some kind of good that that may be that that narrative of progress that we like to impose on this whole history which I think is really problematic and obscures I think some of the fundamental difficulties of obtaining equality in the society and if I can you know proceed from there you know two things first the logic of rights exactly as you know where I was explaining the logic of individual rights in particular is as alien to the aboriginal legal traditions as the paternalist logic of the honor of the crown in fact even probably more so so in terms of epistemological incompatibilities I mean I don't see any principal reason why using rights discourse is somehow more culturally sensitive than using you know the honor of the crown and certainly aboriginal people always say whatever works anyway it's their game it's their rules that will use whatever works which I think is exactly the right answer so that's point one I'm glad you asked that because I only sort of put in one quote in which somebody was sort of reading human rights back into law and I was hoping people would see how ridiculous that is but the second thing is that I think the word patriarch is quite wrong for what I'm talking about the honor of the crown is certainly paternalist but it's also maternalist and if you look at the whole discourse of the Hudson's Bay Company and the treaties that were sort of signed in British Columbia in the 1840s is the image of Queen Victoria the mother of the empire that hovers over this whole part of the world particularly British Columbia as I said I think Ontario and Quebec are very different they had a different history of colonization and treaty making and George III was sort of the sovereign there so there is this image of Queen Victoria that I think historians of India have sort of written about which has this kind of interesting multifaceted persona and to this day there are aboriginal legal scholars who claim that the British crown owes fiduciary duties to the aboriginal peoples of Canada why? because the aboriginal peoples of Canada were never consulted about the British crown giving up most of its powers to the Canadian government which I think is a fascinating argument so they were consulted about the fact that Canada was formed hey you owe us at least a whole lot of money with interest since 1867 now I think that's a really interesting because that's sort of taking advantage of the multiple personalities of the crown in a really interesting way I mean other people said of course there was an attempt to litigate this but a group of Alberta Indian nations and the British Court of Appeal just dismissed this as saying the British crown owes you anything forget it but I think the argument can be made because they weren't consulted about the formation of Canada you know some things still owing and I'd love to see some British lawyer try and litigate this yes here we, to John Witt I'm Mike Mackenzie a captain trial lawyer and I face a similar situation you do 100,000 pages of primary materials you know they it's in there at one page you want so we come out metaphysical and sexual and go down to how do you get that method of legal history be used for by six cars it would be useful to know how do you work when they see that here for a very long time this is what it takes years I don't know I don't use four by six cars anymore these wonderful digital four by six cars they work much better you can search them and all sorts of fun things I don't know in some ways a different way to approach this so I was describing so many fields in which the the problem for legal history is not the lack of a theoretical apparatus to make sense but rather just person hours to spend the time to learn about what's going on there and one of the areas in which this problem is most acute is in the 20th century administrative state where the masses of material are so huge and so mind telling that to make useful sense of the material such that one reader might find her way to the end of what you've written about this is just extraordinarily difficult so not only the purpose of identifying finding the one page or finding the pages in your 100,000 files that would be useful but then communicating that material to someone in a way that makes sense so writing the history of the administrative state whether it's in patents or where it seems to me to be a challenge that we haven't really answered yet there are some really good starts going on so the work at Dan Ernst is doing at Georgetown it was really excellent administrative history rule schiller a little bit to the north of here was doing really great stuff I shouldn't start naming names it was a scan of the audience of the stories of administrative state so I don't know that I sympathize with you there's no good answers the technique that you've gone through you've got your 100,000 you create cards for each item so I have an end note entries for the end the challenge is to craft a question that will make the material light up because if you don't have a question then you're going to be in the 100,000 pages forever so you start with hypothesis very similar to what all of you have been trying to do for two days Dirk in the back actually I don't need to do it just play off of what John just said that is the the naming names I think that this is made to shift to a kind of more general comment about well as one thinks about how to talk about the next new thing one of the things that's been remarkably absolutely important is talk about names and naming names and talking historiographically and who are you critiquing there's been a lot of description of generic or abstract things to overcome but relatively little direct either building on or challenging and I think it actually it strikes me obviously there's a large pressure to write general books the general public will read that will not that in which the editor will always tell you historiographically but in this group actually what we want is the stuff that the editors don't want we want those names we want the sense of who is going to be killed in order that the new world come into into being who has to be destroyed I guess it's a kind of general comment that people want to respond to Dirk I hadn't wanted to tell you this I'm toast the last movement began when Morty wrote his conservative critique of those legal those biographies in 1972 that was and that was a very specific and concrete destruction which made space for the new my sense started more seriously is that so I would say we're not in a moment of destruction that is to say we're in a moment of draconian normal science but in the best sense and it may be that irregularities develop in the normal science and maybe some time and maybe near maybe just in future there'll be some revolutionary moments for overthrowing the hard talk and his friends but I'm not sure I think we're, I don't know, I experienced I was still celebrating the availability of the frameworks that we've got but even then it was very helpful in Paul's discussion I thought to have a sense of who he was building on and where he was building space against others as opposed to the kind of abstraction one saw in particularly yesterday's discussions for Lauren it's a big one in a few projects we're talking about a legal issue of localism something that perhaps we haven't done but it seems like you're a description of what this legal issue of localism will look like in the direction that one is at once very vague and consistent as one of the characteristics of local legalism at the same time you talked about a local logic that there is some sort of coherency perhaps to this so I was wondering if there is some kind of logic to this and where does the impact come from if there is sort of pervasive inconsistency then there's this decentralized sort of bottom-up creation of the legal system where does it come from and then also just more generally what is the statement of local law is there something generalizable that we can take from this that perhaps we can inform our understanding of law when we go back to your question Yeah, it's a really good question and it actually raises interesting things that I'm not quite sure how to answer but I think there are actually dynamics in localized law that are very similar across time or across spaces so while in any given case particular cases will be decided based on very specific kinds of local knowledge the actual process by which this is done is incredibly consistent so the process itself is where the logic lies and the way that this is done the way that people come and present their information and their knowledge about what's going on the sort of rituals that are involved in this where people all gather together they air all of this, they repeat things they say things over and over and over just like I did, they repeat, they say them over and over they arrive at a conclusion and then there is some contestation of sometimes of this conclusion but it's interesting because we sort of assume usually that the conclusion is somehow the event and in this instance the conclusion is the anti-event because it's already sort of been decided by the time you get to that point and so the logic of what's going on here takes place in the process itself now where that comes from is really interesting and this is where I think I may be undercutting myself in some ways the logic is partly through processes that are laid down and widely known, right? Where do these processes come from? They obviously come from some centralized space and these processes were laid down actually many hundreds of years ago and they use a lot of the text from defining what English magistrates should do so these do come from some place that's sad, it is widely known to the point where people aren't entirely sure where that comes from anymore and it circulates through the community people's interactions with each other and we don't usually think of that as a legal logic because we're focused on the outcomes who wants the principles but I think here part of the legal logic is not just the process but it's ability to incorporate a wide range of things so part of this logic is the promiscuousness of localized law, it's refusal to define and identify a strict body of legal texts a strict body of legal principles are defined by certain people which is more broadly to include the Bible, a novel what mom said and appellate cases this broad range of issues they're drawing on legal principles but in a way that will produce this outcome that coordinates with how people understand justice in their local areas I think that's actually a logic that coheres and I think it describes a lot of legal situations over spaces which is really interesting so it's not completely chaotic it's about some sort of internal processes and understandings of principles guiding this and I think that we should to me that makes sense that we should take account of that as being part of something that's law, partly because these people think it is law too they don't necessarily think that the things that we identify as law are just the law they're thinking much more broadly about it and I think that taking them a little bit more seriously is how they see the law is useful Mr. Riffin has an aside to that too Bob's comment I don't think that this does go away but I think it inhabits different spaces it has different kinds of authority and power at different kinds of moments and in this particular moment it seems like this has a great deal of power and authority perhaps much more so to represent how people see the law than other iterations of law that this then may be the place to generalize that can represent how people understand the law Barbara initially just a just give it a second it perks up okay the film Laura Nader's film Little Injustices which is just dispute resolutions in this small town in Mexico where her research was based and how that gets transferred over a period of time strikes me that in part of what you're talking about dispute resolution and so I'm kind of interested in the distinction between dispute resolution and law and then a question for Mariana I'm wondering whether this phrase the honor of the crown is if you're seeing it used in other kinds of cases that don't deal with indigenous land rights and whether all of the kinds of context in which it would come up would involve territory I asked a colleague who's sort of an expert in the history of constitutional law including English constitutional law he says the honor of the crown something that he only found and he actually went looking for it he only found it once in some obscure case where somebody was suing the crown for unpaid debts to merchants which is sort of interesting debts of honor if you read 19th century Victorian 3Dekker's debts of honor are always precisely not the ones to merchants but gambling debts but I mean it doesn't have a lot of other at least as far as I know it doesn't have a lot of other current manifestations I mean I'm sure historically it does and I was precisely looking for it what else does the honor of the crown do so much but I haven't found I don't know I mean maybe you could now know some obscure case law on this not sort of being a fan of Victoria Triglia but on this point that is interesting Triglia is good I love Triglia the crown is actually used in justice sorry in justice story percent in the Toronto British case in every American real historian knows what it claims to know so and when he says in fact that the rule according to which the government should in fact protect the investment of the Charlotte Bridge Company and not you know essentially render the value of the Charlotte Bridge comes from an old English rule where the honor of the crown requires that when you in fact engage in a contract with an individual it must project that investment so and the phrase he uses in fact the phrase the honor of the crown and does it work as a legal faction well he wouldn't say quite that but he was interested in that as a sort of separate group a separate principle where the government sort of projects the investments of people with whom it bargains to distinguish from where grants flow from the bounty of the crown and which leads the government to then go around sorry can I do the dispute resolution were you asking me that can I actually I think it's really interesting because there is this moment in a lot of these local cases where people move from dispute resolution and they say then they're taking it to law and they make this transition in their mind and I think this is really crucial in understanding why this is to them law and how they're thinking of this in a very different way dispute resolution people get together and they're like okay so you know you messed up my fence here I'll give you a bucket of corn and give me a hug whatever right and or you rate my daughter and then there's a moment where that falls apart or it isn't going to work and then people say no I'm taking it to law and actually use that term which is interesting there is this moment then where people go from a dispute resolution to something where they're taking it to this more sort of mystical place where the law becomes has authority and they made that distinction and move in their own mind and it's interesting that all these people then who do this actually also follow the rules they follow the rules they abide by this they very much believe in what they're doing that it has authority and I think all of that is exactly what we mean oftentimes when we're talking and what has come up repeatedly in this conference too about what the law is it has some authority beyond those individuals and those people do see it that way even as they're the people who are constituting this and that is their language too and so they see that they're following the principles they see that this is something to them that is so we are coming to the end of the allotted time I know there are lots of conversation that could continue to happen and indeed I hope will continue to happen over cocktails at the law school but before you race out of your seat and go get a drink there are two things remaining to be done one thanks panel hang on the other is Chris Tomlans wants to have a few moments I want Chris to have a few moments to wrap up and then that will launch us off to cocktail so first join me in thanking the panel for this panel thank you to each of the panels much has been said there should remain little to be said in a sense this is the time of ending I want to say two things we have we have talked about in a sense to problematics the problematic of law and the problematic of law as I phrase them as problematics because part of the objective I think was to take something that perhaps we have taken for granted a formulation that perhaps we may have become a little complacent about and we have subjected it to an examination by counterposing a different problematic, a different formulation because we may have enlightened it, we may have some of us may have rejected it some of us may have accepted it again in a different sense for myself speaking purely for myself thinking of how I think of history one way in which I think of history is a kind of movie strip and by that I mean not as a movie but as a movie strip a succession of images arranged in a certain sequence that need not be the only sequence but that effectively expresses something that I am striving to move toward and my own work which is an idea that is integral to Walter Bayman's own sense of history which he termed that it stands still that is the moment the frozen moment that one freezes to inspect that is how I think law as is distinct from the motion of law and we have a lot about Bayman in the last two days it's interesting to me that we have done so some of us are Bayman in Easters some are not nevertheless I think one thing that's interesting to me is that that name should have arisen quite frequently one does not hear Walter Bayman's name very much in the meetings of American historians perhaps that means that a judicious mixture of others is not a bad idea we've created a conference with friends both old friends and some new friends many of these participants have come far have worked very hard have given us their time their energy and have paid their own way so that others could come and I think I would like to ask you all please just to thank all of our participants for what we've had from them in the last two days now what would law be without perception and so in a couple of minutes we will assemble on the plaza and we will move to law as reception but because this is an ending endings are always sad particularly when so many have come from far away and are leaving sad because they are completions so to interrupt the ending and the completion because I'm reluctant to see you all go I thought I'd end with a short story not too well I promise you a story about a beginning that touches on some of the themes I think that we have been discussing themes of drama and depiction themes of logos and gnomes themes of resistance and lies and enchantments of empires and law and a few brute facts it begins on the 14th of February in 1613 in London where Princess Elizabeth the 17-year-old daughter of James I and Anne of Denmark married Frederick V Prince Elector of the Reinhardt Faltz that is the reddish platinum after their marriage Elizabeth left England for Frederick's court in Heidelberg and never returned now in the old Europe writes Francis Yates a royal wedding is a diplomatic event with the first importance and festivities of royal weddings were statements of policy and on the 15th of February immediately following the wedding ceremony on the 14th festivities were dominated by a mosque the memorable mosque of the two honorable Inns of Court the Middle Temple and Lincoln's Inn a mosque written by George Chapman and staged by Inigo Jones mosque as I'm sure many of you know is an elaborate form of art and entertainment particularly popular and to the spirit of England it combined music, dance, song, acting elaborate costume elaborate staging James I was a known aficionado an accountable and pageant mosque was primarily allegorical it was a narrative it was hugely expensive it flooded its patrons with displays of conspicuous consumption it conveyed the richness and importance of a court that would be demeaned by anything less elaborate and costly a fully elaborated mosque would normally contain a subversive counter theme an anti-mask that was intended to create a contrast to the mosque's main narrative that would be resolved in a concluding display of order and magnificence usually one that's centered on the presence of the monarch that was the mosque's fulfillment this final display it was to lead spectators to a fuller understanding through contemplating an image which would impress upon them the power and the the glory of the spectacle and of the patron to whom the spectacle was directed the theme of the memorable mosque of the Two Honourable Inns of Court was Virginia it began with the torchlet parade of mass participants from the Inns of Court to the Royal Palace of Whitehall the torchbearers wrote Chapman in his notes should be of Indian garb the chief masquas likewise richly attired in Indian habits and altogether estranged for an Indian like the visors that is their faces their faces should be of olive color but pleasingly visaged their hair should be black and large it should wave down to their shoulders each should be intended by two moors attired like Indian slaves the whole should escort two colors triumphal there in Virginia priests by whom the sun is there adored and therefore they should be told the febates arriving at Blackhall the masquas presented themselves as Indian princes come to England to honor the marriage of princess Elizabeth now at its surface the masque displays virginian abeasance to the English crown the narrative is somewhat more complex the story the masque tells is of a troop of noble virginians born to Britain by the effects of the motions of the earth on their island a huge golden rock come from one of the most remote parts of the world brought to touch of this all exceeding island that is Britain which though itself an island did not move but was divided from the world so that the whole world besides moves if this isle stands fixed on her own feet and defies the world's usability the virginian princes came attending the god of riches Pluto all triumphantly shining the mind of gold for hearing of the most royal salinity of these sacred nocturals they crossed the ocean in their honor and now here they are arrived upon their arrival the goddess honor appears from her British temple attended by the priestess Eunomia the sacred power of law and honor addresses Pluto thus those whom I made cross the Britain ocean to this most famed isle of all the world to do due homage to the sacred nocturals of law and virtue celebrated here by this hour of the holy even I know are ready to perform the rites they owe to setting fevers that is to the sun which their first act advances the fevates that is the priests of the sun appear and as the virginian mind opens to reveal its riches within they begin to sing three hymns of worship to the setting sun then as they sing the second hymn honor speaks again not in counterpoint as it were not in complementarity but in interruption this superstitious hymn sung to the sun let us encounter with fit duties our dear fevers whose trupiety enjoys from heaven and earthly deity and a distinct competing chorus begins to intervene and it is directed not like the virginian chorus toward the setting sun but it is directed toward the person of the king and it goes as follows rise, rise, fevers ever rise descend not to the inconstant stream but grace with endless light our skies to thee that sun is but a beam may our sun not set before he sees his endless sea arise and death his triple crowded shore with sprints of human deities so as these new voices sing the virginian priests they continue their hymns to the setting sun and the two choruses and against the other in a discordant competition and finally the priests complete their refrain and they fall silent at which point Arnaud directs the second chorus to conclude your song to him to whom all fevers beams belong and the voices respond rise still dear sun never set but beat earth heavenly light enter clouds and dark effects of night as when the rosy mourn doth rise like mists all give thy wisdom way a learned king is as in skies to pour dim stars the flaming day and as this chorus dies away eunomia takes stage and she addresses the virginians eunomia recall is the priestess of law virginian princes you must now renounce your superstitious worship of these sons subject to cloudy darknings and descents and your sweet devotions turn the events to this our britain fevers whose bright skies enlightened with a christian piety is never subject to black eras night and have already offered heavens true light to your dark region which acknowledge now send unto him all your homage vile and then all join in harmony to celebrate the nuptials of elizabeth and her young this is a higher moment of state a major celebration of domestic order and at this moment the memorable mask enacts sovereign possession of virginia by this our britain fevers that is of course james the first as the overthrow of magic and myth and superstition and the beginning of law the mask represents virginia as an island of riches that has floated across the atlantic and touched upon the immovable island of britain where it fetches up attaches itself and becomes britain's possession telling me the mask's interior conflict and how it is resolved the conflict that is between the priest's hymns of worship to the setting sun and the counter course that directs its praises to the ever rising son of king james honor of course sees to the ascendancy of the counter course but the final emphatic resolution of the conflict between anti-mask and mask this emergence of the mask's intended meaning awaits the final intervention of yonomia who commands the silent virginians to turn away from their son and henceforth direct their diversions towards james thus law begins england's virginia as the conquest of myth now i will offer no profound observations of the meaning of the story i will only say that it helped me end a book that i had been writing for some years but in thinking about this story and the companions that it has in that book and what they say about me as a scholar i conclude that i'm a bit of a jack door i like collecting things and that if this conference had a theme or a purpose in my mind it was a jack door's purpose it was as if a collection of juxtapositions and intersections my jack door mentality is what draws me to Walter Benjamin i think because like Benjamin i collect things one of the things i collect is epigraphs and so if we need an epigraph for this conference an epigraph is you now come with beginnings so this is an epigraph for an ending which will better for not be an ending but a beginning let it be this one which i had just collected only a few minutes ago from the back jacket of a book that John Comer off has just shown me a book by his son Joshua the book is i think titled for our purposes monstrous intersections and the epigraph is the sleep of pragmatism breeds monsters thank you


Janet Jackson is an American singer, dance choreographer, actress, and producer who rose to prominence alongside her world-famous family, the Jacksons, in the late 1970s. Since breaking off on her own, Janet has arguably become the second biggest member of the family next to her late brother Michael, and certainly she's the member of the family with the greatest career longevity. As someone who's been famous since the age of 10 years old, it shouldn't come as any surprise to find out that Janet has lived in some of the nicest homes in the world over the years everywhere from Malibu, California, to a penthouse in Trump Plaza, New York, to a townhouse half the world away in London, England. These days, Janet can be found living in London with her son, Issa, sticking close by her former husband, billionaire Wasam Almana, whom she met back in 2010 and then divorced a few years ago. As moving out of the townhouse, the family shared with one another, Janet is reportedly renting another place close by. And while it's unclear if Janet walked away with any of her ex-husband's substantial wealth during their divorce proceedings, she's doing alright for herself still with an estimated net worth of close to $190 million. In these videos, we don't reveal any addresses, and even though I've done a house tour of my own place, please do not show up at any private residences because it's not safe for anyone. How's it going guys and girls? It's Kara here for you with a brand new house tour, this one taking a look at the series of different homes that Janet Jackson has lived in over the years. If I'm being honest with you guys, Janet has kept a pretty tight lid on the details of her homes so while we have records of almost all of them, what they're like on the inside is a little harder to view, but I'll give you all the details I can. I noticed 95% of you watching aren't subscribed so be sure to hit that subscribe button because we post a new video daily. Follow me on Instagram to chat and as usual let me know who's house tour is next in those comments down below and let's get into this video. To kick things off, we're jumping in the time machine and going way back and I do mean way back to Janet's childhood home in Gary, Indiana. This tiny house is located on Jackson Street and is reportedly a two bedroom home. Janet used to live here with her entire family including her six other siblings and she'd share a bedroom with all of them. My mother has this attachment with the house in Gary, Indiana, 2300 Jackson Street. She loves that place. She's always kept it up, she's redecorated and she loves going there. She just loves doing that. Janet actually stopped by this home only a couple of years ago to visit. She was greatly overwhelmed by her emotions and told the Northwest Indiana Times. When I saw the house I just started crying, me and my family are so blessed. I'm so thankful. Janet moved out of this home when she was only three years old. The last time she'd visited prior to this moment was when she was about eight. From the humblest beginnings of the top of the mountain, Janet's next home will show you just how far her career was able to take her. One of the very first homes that Janet ever bought for herself after her career took off was this stunning Malibu beachfront property located on Pacific Coast Highway. She bought this 5,658 square foot home in 1991 for 4.1 million dollars, which I'm pretty sure in today's dollars is like a billion gazillion, but I may need someone who's good with numbers to double check that for me. Janet would hold on to this property for a number of years, selling it in the mid-2000s for 8.5 million, which means she more than doubled her investment in the place. For moving on from the property, Janet gave an interview with Primetime that offered a brief glimpse inside of this property. Next up is a home that by all records Janet still owns, a penthouse located in the Trump International Hotel in Tower Condominium, located at one central park west in Manhattan. Janet first purchased this unit back in 1998 for an estimated 2.8 million according to public records. Her apartment is located on the 34th floor and has some of the best views in the entire building overlooking Central Park. It features 2,094 square feet of living space, 3 bedrooms and 3 baths. It also houses a 28 foot long L shaped living and dining room combo area. For the most part, Janet has gone with a semi-opulent and dark cube décor to complement the floor to ceiling windows and their remarkable views. The kitchen is accessible from the living room and isn't all that large, but it's well equipped with a washer and dryer combo stacked in a nearby closet and has its own tiny dining alcove in front of a fairly remarkable window with great view. Building residents can enjoy 5-star hotel services like health club access with pool and spa, maid and valet parking, a business center and 24 hour room service from high priced eatery Jean George. Back in 2014, Janet decided to lease this bad boy for 35K a month, but it only lasted for a short period of time. With her recent divorce, Janet has probably been using this home more often than she used to and she also had the locks changed once her divorce was finalized about 3 years ago. Not too long after first picking up that penthouse, Janet also bought this gorgeous home just outside of Las Vegas, Nevada. The rumor is that Janet actually bought this home for her family, either for her mother or her sister Rebbe who are both said to reside in the state of Nevada. She purchased this property back in 2002 for around 520K. The home reportedly features 4,636 square feet. Unfortunately, that's about all we really know about the place and considering it's the home to her family members that doesn't surprise me all that much. Most celebrities like to keep their family as shielded from the media as possible. In Janet's case, that's kind of ironic considering how her parents did the exact opposite to her when she was just a child, but hey, I guess it's worked out for everyone. Before I bring this video to an end, we're gonna quickly check in on a couple places that Janet has lived more recently. After meeting businessmen Wissam Al-Mana in 2012, the two were married 2 years later and eventually had their son Issa in January of 2017. A year 3 months later, their marriage was over. While still married, Janet and Wissam lived in a swanky Mayfair townhouse located in the heart of London, England. Unfortunately, only pictures we really have of this place are from when Janet was moving out. Wissam is worth an estimated £820 million and one has to assume that the townhouse they both shared must be in his name and owned wholly by his since Janet was the one that got the boot. After moving back stateside for a couple of years, Janet returned to England in 2019 and has reportedly found another townhouse not too far from the home she shared with Wissam. Much like her previous townhouse, the only images we have of Janet and this new place are from when she was getting picked up outside of it. As far as how nice this new place looks on the inside, well I can only guess. But Janet did share a recent photo on social media that shows how she's keeping busy with her son during the worldwide quarantine, building dollhouses with him. Like I said, not really all that much to go on, but with a net worth of close to 200 million, I can only imagine that Janet and her baby boy are still living in the very lap of luxury. Alright guys, I'm gonna end this video here. What did you guys think of the different homes that Janet Jackson has lived in over the years? Any favorite in particular? Let me know in the comments down below. Follow me on Instagram to get in touch and I'll see you guys all in the next video. Bye!


On the test you may get a program like this and be asked to say exactly. What's the output of this program? Here's how you solve a problem like this on a piece of paper You have one section for your variables And you have one section that tells what output you're going to see Then you go through this program step by step exactly as if you were the computer So let's start off with this first statement n equals 2 So I'm going to open up a new line here n and I'm going to put a 2 there Now I go on to the for loop. I have my counter variable, which is count. I'm Going to make a new line for that and it starts off as 4 Now I move on to the next statement. I'll take the right hand side So n right now is 2 2 plus 1 is 3 times 4 is 12 and that goes back into n So n now is a 12 Now I say print in so I'm just going to get the number 12. I'm not going to get the words n is 12 I want to see exactly what will be on the screen and it'll be just the number 12. I Come back up to here and my count now becomes 5 Notice I don't write down count again twice or n twice. I keep one line per variable Count is now 5 and I move on to here because I'm still in my range n is now 12 12 plus 1 is 13 13 times 5 is 65 and that goes back into n so I get a 65 and I print n which will be output of 65 Come back to the top of my loop and n count excuse me becomes 6. That's still in my range and Now the next line 65 plus 1 is 66 So 66 times 6 which I'm going to have to do by hand here because I can't do it in my head 6 3 396 so 396 will go into n and now I'm going to print whatever is in n which is 396 I Come back up here and The count is out of the range because I go up to but not including the 7 and So I'm out of the loop I'm out of the program and this is what I write down as my output for the program 12 65 396 and That's how you solve problems like what's the output of this program when you see it on the midterm?