Over the past 2 months, I have had my eyes opened to my countries history in ways they had never been before. The chosen reading materials were, it seems, strategically selected to give two very different versions of the turbulent founding decades our country saw. Eric Foner’s Give me Liberty I found to be your typical History text, offering the same, glossed over account of American History. Zinn’s A Peoples History however, displayed what many textbooks and historians hide in their closets. The travesties our country’s founding fathers inflicted on others, the corrupted governments designed to benefit a select part of society, and so on. It makes such a difference when I can am engaged and interested in the material I am studying. It makes it so much more natural to respond to topics that I can connect with. Over the course of this class, I never found myself disgruntled about my assigned work. I never sat for hours trying to figure out what in the world I was going to write about in this week’s blog. What I did struggle with, was breaking out the old writing skills. Although I have been enrolled in classes consistently now for over a year, I haven’t needed to write any sort of paper, or think critically outside of mathematics. This made completing the writing assignments a little challenging. But now, in the end, I feel much more comfortable tackling an essay, and analyzing concepts and putting my thoughts on paper.
As I go back and reread my first blog post on the Diamond Discussion, my writing seems a bit abrupt, and perhaps a little rushed. It seems that I sped through the points I was making. I did not offer any examples of the things I was speaking of. I wrote about how Diamond credited the lack of certain diseases among particular cultures, making them extremely susceptible to them when they came in contact with them. I didn’t explain what I was referring to. I could have inserted one of the many lines in the speech to prove my point, such as this one: “measles and TB evolved from diseases of our cattle, influenza from a disease of pigs, and smallpox possibly from a disease of camels. The Americas had very few native domesticated animal species from which humans could acquire such diseases.” (Diamond 3). I recalled his example of Tasmania, but why did I not quote his exact example, instead of rewording it? I don’t see that I interjected an opinion beyond the opening few lines. If I were to re write this, I would compare and contrast the opinions and research of Diamond to my own ideas and opinions.
In my second posting on American Indians, I seem to have made leaps and bounds from my first. I immediately get the sense that I was much more comfortable writing this piece. I was not rushed, and I fully expressed my thoughts. I made several references to the assigned texts, and supported them with lines from them. This blog felt much more personal and emotional. I let my feelings flow about terrible the treatment of the Indians was. “What sane person would think that stumbling upon an unknown land, claming it for themselves and ousting the native people of that land just because they are not of the same religion or social system is a just thing to do? “ I put much more of my personality into writing about this subject. Obviously, I wrote much more. I did not limit myself to doing the bare minimum. My vocabulary seemed to expand a bit too. Looks like the rust is coming off of the writing machine I can sometimes be!
My third post, at first glance, seems to be riddled with support from the text on my points. But with a closer look, I see that one of my quotes is extremely long. This was not necessary. I could have edited it a bit and explained a little more how this proves my point that the new country of America was “the pot calling the kettle black”. My writing was a little more stylish I think in this post, a little more colorful too.
My fourth post, one would immediately see that I went above and beyond the required writing. I picked a topic that I felt very strongly about. And when I have something to say on a matter, I will say every last word I have to say. So my blog ended up being over 500 words. Whoops. But I thoroughly presented and supported my views on the matter of racial inequality in early America. It angers me to think that someone sees another person as biologically inferior. This showed in my paragraph about the African Americans. It breaks my heart to learn that the Indians abandoned their way of life simply to survive in American society. But I presented my stance on these things eloquently and intelligently.
I can clearly see that my writings gradually improved each time. My paragraph structure improved each time. My supporting quotes improved with each posting. My ideas were more clearly expressed each time. One thing that I see that I am lacking, that I wish I would have noticed earlier, is the lack of citation works. I did not provided a works cited sections at the end of my postings, stating where I pulled my quotes from. I believe that my works became more sophisticated, yes, but with a light heartedness to them as well. My vocabulary expanded greatly allowing me to properly present my material. Although my postings have not been prefect, they show that I was very involved in the class. I took the time to do the readings, Gave the lessons serious thought, and show that I have a good understanding of the material taught. Yes I could have managed my time better. Yes I could have checked my work a little more thoroughly. But am I vastly more educated in American History? Yes. And I would award myself with a B.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Black, Red, Yellow, or Purple. It don't matter. If it ain't white.... it ain't.... right?
“All men are created equal”. Wasn’t that one of the many famous lines of our country’s constitution? Nowadays, it really means what it reads. But in the time of our nation’s birth, it applied only to white men. This proclamation did not include American Indian men, or African American men, or women. In Thomas Jefferson’s research and way of thinking, did he determine the supposed inferiority of American Indians and African American Men was not simply a result of a social hierarchy, but were innate attributes? Makes sense to me. So many Americans were pro slavery. Why? Because it preserved their place in society: “Like other white southerners, most small farmers believed their economic and personal freedom rested on slavery (Foner, 393)” So some Americans, Jefferson perhaps too, claimed “manifest destiny”, and that the African Americans were biologically and physiologically predisposed to slavery. And that it was crucial to the expansion of America that blacks stay in the reins of slavery.
In Matthew Powell’s’ Pod cast on The Western Movement, Star Treks Borg species is used as an analogy for White America. Just as the Borg did, White Americans did not tolerate diversity. Assimilate or die: become a “White American” or die. There was tremendous pressure on the Indians to move towards a more “civilized” lifestyle. White government officials encouraged the Indians to adopt the white ways, because their differences were seen as changeable. And so began the molding of the Indians into civilization. “… Tribes had made great effort to become everything republican citizens should be. The Cherokee had taken the lead, establishing schools, adopting written laws and a constitution modeled on that of the United States, and becoming successful farmers, many of whom owned slaves (Foner, 370)”. But even after some Indians made the efforts to assimilate, they were still not respected, and were viewed the same way. “… In his messages to congress, Jackson repeatedly referred to them as “savages” and supported Georgia’s efforts to seize Cherokee lands and nullify the tribes laws (Foner, 370) So the removal of the Indians continued. Even after some Indians attempted to become Americanized, they did not serve a purpose in American society, as were still seen as a threat.
Needless to say, ignorance breeds contempt.
In Matthew Powell’s’ Pod cast on The Western Movement, Star Treks Borg species is used as an analogy for White America. Just as the Borg did, White Americans did not tolerate diversity. Assimilate or die: become a “White American” or die. There was tremendous pressure on the Indians to move towards a more “civilized” lifestyle. White government officials encouraged the Indians to adopt the white ways, because their differences were seen as changeable. And so began the molding of the Indians into civilization. “… Tribes had made great effort to become everything republican citizens should be. The Cherokee had taken the lead, establishing schools, adopting written laws and a constitution modeled on that of the United States, and becoming successful farmers, many of whom owned slaves (Foner, 370)”. But even after some Indians made the efforts to assimilate, they were still not respected, and were viewed the same way. “… In his messages to congress, Jackson repeatedly referred to them as “savages” and supported Georgia’s efforts to seize Cherokee lands and nullify the tribes laws (Foner, 370) So the removal of the Indians continued. Even after some Indians attempted to become Americanized, they did not serve a purpose in American society, as were still seen as a threat.
Needless to say, ignorance breeds contempt.
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Revolution is over! But who won?
After all the fighting, the suffering, the triumphs and loses, the American Revolution was a success. But who was reaping the Benefits? The Declarations of Independence speaks of the inalienable rights of Man, but one specific breed of man: The White man. The White American Man was flying high, grabbing land, enjoying his new liberties and making money left and right. But what about the rest of the American population? What about the white women? The American Indians? The African Americans? Did they benefits from this supposedly wonderful thing that was the revolution? Some did, other did not.
American women, you would think, would be enjoying their new freedoms as Americans just as their husbands were. No. They were just as oppressed as before. The Woman’s place in America was not a good one in the beginning. Zinn speaks of women serving specific purposes in coming to the American colonies. “…women were imported as sex slaves, childbearers, and companions… many came as indentured servants” (104). But as time went on, as war went on, they gained bit of ground, and found their places as Americans, and even showed their patriotism. “…war brought women out into public affairs. Women formed patriotic groups, carried out anti-British actions and wrote articles for independence” 109. After the war, changes were taking place everywhere. Women were bound to experience some sort of change. And they did. This new America was quite different from colonial America. The demands on women increased, Zinn states this did much for their quest for equality: “In preindustrial America, the practical need for women in a frontier society had produced some measure of equality; women worked at important jobs” (111) But this “intimate” revolution was recognized by society, and was not being digested well. Many men saw these free thinking independent women as a threat. There was a significant push back. “There was a significant pressure for women to stay home where they could be more easily controlled. For the most part though, Women did benefit from the revolution. All though their true freedom would take much effort, the revolution opened the door for them.
African Americans initially did not see many benefits of the revolutions. Many had fled to the British, who had promised their freedom. But now, they faced the multi-faceted slave trade in America. In the North, Slavery was on its way out, in the south, it was going strong. But the bold ideals of the revolution sparked the confidence of black freedom. Eric Foner, in his book Give me Liberty, expresses that this was a time of change for the blacks and how they were viewed: “It was during the revolutionary era that slavery for the first time became a focus of public debate” (223). With much effort from the black community, they began to sway society, challenging the words of the revolution. “ Throughout the Revolutionary period, petitions, pamphlets and sermons by blacks expressed ‘astonishment’ that white patriots failed to realize that ‘every principle from which America has acted’ demanded emancipation.” (225). These efforts proved effective towards the north, but not in the south. While many states in the north banned slavery, the southern cotton plantations stood firm in their position on slavery. So the African American advancements after the war, were contradictory.
The American Indians, in no way, shape or form, benefited from the revolutionary war. The government continued to bribe or force them out of their lands. Zinn recalls the list of treaties made by Mr. Andrew Jackson, some of these being with the Creek Indians: “Jackson’s 1814 treaty with the Creek Indians granted them individual ownership of land, thus splitting Indian from Indian, breaking up communal landholding…” (128). Seems friendly enough, but this was just the beginning. “Every time a treaty was signed, pushing the Creeks from one Area to the next, promising them security there, whites would move into the new area and the Creeks would feel compelled to sign a new treaty, giving up more land in return for security elsewhere” (129). When the Indians tried to retaliate against the actions of white settlers, Jackson would order the villages to be destroyed. Jackson was met with much resistance from the Indians; he had to find a different approach. “The Indians would not be forced to go west. But if they choose to stay, they would have to abide by state laws, which destroyed their tribal and personal rights… if they left however, the federal government would give them financial support and promise lands beyond the Mississippi” (133). With the use of empty promises and trickery, the Indians were swindled out of their lands, and suffered much loss.
American women, you would think, would be enjoying their new freedoms as Americans just as their husbands were. No. They were just as oppressed as before. The Woman’s place in America was not a good one in the beginning. Zinn speaks of women serving specific purposes in coming to the American colonies. “…women were imported as sex slaves, childbearers, and companions… many came as indentured servants” (104). But as time went on, as war went on, they gained bit of ground, and found their places as Americans, and even showed their patriotism. “…war brought women out into public affairs. Women formed patriotic groups, carried out anti-British actions and wrote articles for independence” 109. After the war, changes were taking place everywhere. Women were bound to experience some sort of change. And they did. This new America was quite different from colonial America. The demands on women increased, Zinn states this did much for their quest for equality: “In preindustrial America, the practical need for women in a frontier society had produced some measure of equality; women worked at important jobs” (111) But this “intimate” revolution was recognized by society, and was not being digested well. Many men saw these free thinking independent women as a threat. There was a significant push back. “There was a significant pressure for women to stay home where they could be more easily controlled. For the most part though, Women did benefit from the revolution. All though their true freedom would take much effort, the revolution opened the door for them.
African Americans initially did not see many benefits of the revolutions. Many had fled to the British, who had promised their freedom. But now, they faced the multi-faceted slave trade in America. In the North, Slavery was on its way out, in the south, it was going strong. But the bold ideals of the revolution sparked the confidence of black freedom. Eric Foner, in his book Give me Liberty, expresses that this was a time of change for the blacks and how they were viewed: “It was during the revolutionary era that slavery for the first time became a focus of public debate” (223). With much effort from the black community, they began to sway society, challenging the words of the revolution. “ Throughout the Revolutionary period, petitions, pamphlets and sermons by blacks expressed ‘astonishment’ that white patriots failed to realize that ‘every principle from which America has acted’ demanded emancipation.” (225). These efforts proved effective towards the north, but not in the south. While many states in the north banned slavery, the southern cotton plantations stood firm in their position on slavery. So the African American advancements after the war, were contradictory.
The American Indians, in no way, shape or form, benefited from the revolutionary war. The government continued to bribe or force them out of their lands. Zinn recalls the list of treaties made by Mr. Andrew Jackson, some of these being with the Creek Indians: “Jackson’s 1814 treaty with the Creek Indians granted them individual ownership of land, thus splitting Indian from Indian, breaking up communal landholding…” (128). Seems friendly enough, but this was just the beginning. “Every time a treaty was signed, pushing the Creeks from one Area to the next, promising them security there, whites would move into the new area and the Creeks would feel compelled to sign a new treaty, giving up more land in return for security elsewhere” (129). When the Indians tried to retaliate against the actions of white settlers, Jackson would order the villages to be destroyed. Jackson was met with much resistance from the Indians; he had to find a different approach. “The Indians would not be forced to go west. But if they choose to stay, they would have to abide by state laws, which destroyed their tribal and personal rights… if they left however, the federal government would give them financial support and promise lands beyond the Mississippi” (133). With the use of empty promises and trickery, the Indians were swindled out of their lands, and suffered much loss.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The Revolution: Trick or Treat?
In Zinn’s analysis of the social classes of the revolution, he makes the same conclusions that Carl Deglar, Edmund Morgan, John Shy and many other historians have made: The structures of the social classes in Colonial America did not experience much change during or after The Revolution. Although many good things did come from the Revolution, the majority of society did not reap these benefits. Zinn underlines this theme when he quoted John Shy: “Revolutionary America may have been a middle-class society, happier and more prosperous than any other in it’s time, but it contained a large and growing number of fairly poor people, and many of the did much of the actual fighting and suffering between 1775 and 1783: a very old story” (79)
The leaders of the revolution, our “Founding Fathers”, were not of the repressed, fighting and courageous lower class despite romanticized legend. He sides with Carl Deglar’s statement on this from Out of Our Past: George Washington was the richest man in America. John Hancock was a prosperous Boston merchant. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy printer” (85). When it cam time to fight for America’s freedom, there was a giant loophole. “…The Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for the military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes, the poor had to serve” (75)
The ruling that early America saw was essentially, did not differ much from the rule of England. The lower class was still angered by their lack of voice and liberty. And so resulted the slue of rebellions: Shay’s Rebellion, The Riot of New Years Day 1781, The Actions of the Insurgents or “Regulators” and so on. So how did the leaders of our forming country pull it together? Poetry, basically. Inspirational Poetry. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever and Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government….
… All of this language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens and military attacks, was well suited to unite large number of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.” (71-72)
Some may see that the colonists were tricked by the emerging government to join them against England, with promise of a better life. Others may see it as the Government did the best they could, but still had to inflict some not so far regulations upon the colonists. It is up for interpretation.
The leaders of the revolution, our “Founding Fathers”, were not of the repressed, fighting and courageous lower class despite romanticized legend. He sides with Carl Deglar’s statement on this from Out of Our Past: George Washington was the richest man in America. John Hancock was a prosperous Boston merchant. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy printer” (85). When it cam time to fight for America’s freedom, there was a giant loophole. “…The Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered the townsmen to show up on the Common for the military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes, the poor had to serve” (75)
The ruling that early America saw was essentially, did not differ much from the rule of England. The lower class was still angered by their lack of voice and liberty. And so resulted the slue of rebellions: Shay’s Rebellion, The Riot of New Years Day 1781, The Actions of the Insurgents or “Regulators” and so on. So how did the leaders of our forming country pull it together? Poetry, basically. Inspirational Poetry. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever and Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government….
… All of this language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens and military attacks, was well suited to unite large number of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.” (71-72)
Some may see that the colonists were tricked by the emerging government to join them against England, with promise of a better life. Others may see it as the Government did the best they could, but still had to inflict some not so far regulations upon the colonists. It is up for interpretation.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Module 3- The American Indians- A painting of Impressionism
Since our first history classes in Elementary School and through popular legend, we have be taught certain ideas about our beginning relations with the Native Americans. From the story of Pocahontas to the beginning of the Thanksgiving tradition, our society paints a fairly quaint picture of our treatment of the Indians. How askew this picture is. These tales of peaceful feasts and romances between the Europeans and the Indians are censored versions of what really happened when we came to this continent. They have omitted the horrendous treatment of the Indians, the terrible ways we came to acquire the lands that would become America.
“Most of the Europeans who crossed the Atlantic in the wake of Columbus…had immense confidence in their superiority to those they encountered in America. They expected these societies to abandon their own beliefs and traditions and embrace those of the newcomers. Those who failed to do so were considered uncivilized heathens” (18). What sane person would think that stumbling upon an unknown land, claiming it for themselves and ousting the native people of that land just because they are not of the same religion or social system is a just thing to do? Anyone who was being removed from their homeland would be savage, and try to defend themselves and fight for what was theirs first, as many tribes did! Eric Foner speaks of King Phillips War as the bloodiest and most bitter conflict of the seventeenth century. “By 1976 Indian forces attacked nearly half of New England’s ninety towns… In mid 1976 the tide of battle turned and a ferocious counterattack broke the Indians power once and for all… Indian villages were destroyed, and captives, including men, women and children, were killed or sold into slavery…” (96-97). These people were simply trying to preserve their way of life, which before the arrival of Europeans, wasn’t a bother to anyone.
Popular belief was that Indians were savage, uncivilized, unorganized, and in need of saving or removal. When in reality, tribes had clear, defined religious beliefs and structure. Some even had established a “Foreign Policy”. “In present-day New York and Pennsylvania, five Iroquois peoples formed a Great League of Peace. Each Year a Great Council met to coordinate behavior towards outsiders.” (24) It is also taught that Indians were uncooperative with the newcomers, and sought nothing but violence. This is definitely not the case in William Penn’s Settlement: “Penn’s Chain of Friendship appealed to the local Indians, promising protection from the Iroquois” (93). This obviously resulted in a much more peaceful coexistence in Pennsylvania, since no conflicts have been noted in history.
It’s quite sad that we have been brainwashed to think so poorly of the American Indians. They are very spiritual, peaceful peoples, who were grossly taken advantage of. They truly deserve all our respect; after all, they were here long before we were. The facts have been rearranged, forgotten, ignored or changed to suit and uphold the American ideals of freedom. Call me unpatriotic, a traitor to my own country, but this period, along with several others, of our "Great" Country's history is shameful and embarassing.
“Most of the Europeans who crossed the Atlantic in the wake of Columbus…had immense confidence in their superiority to those they encountered in America. They expected these societies to abandon their own beliefs and traditions and embrace those of the newcomers. Those who failed to do so were considered uncivilized heathens” (18). What sane person would think that stumbling upon an unknown land, claiming it for themselves and ousting the native people of that land just because they are not of the same religion or social system is a just thing to do? Anyone who was being removed from their homeland would be savage, and try to defend themselves and fight for what was theirs first, as many tribes did! Eric Foner speaks of King Phillips War as the bloodiest and most bitter conflict of the seventeenth century. “By 1976 Indian forces attacked nearly half of New England’s ninety towns… In mid 1976 the tide of battle turned and a ferocious counterattack broke the Indians power once and for all… Indian villages were destroyed, and captives, including men, women and children, were killed or sold into slavery…” (96-97). These people were simply trying to preserve their way of life, which before the arrival of Europeans, wasn’t a bother to anyone.
Popular belief was that Indians were savage, uncivilized, unorganized, and in need of saving or removal. When in reality, tribes had clear, defined religious beliefs and structure. Some even had established a “Foreign Policy”. “In present-day New York and Pennsylvania, five Iroquois peoples formed a Great League of Peace. Each Year a Great Council met to coordinate behavior towards outsiders.” (24) It is also taught that Indians were uncooperative with the newcomers, and sought nothing but violence. This is definitely not the case in William Penn’s Settlement: “Penn’s Chain of Friendship appealed to the local Indians, promising protection from the Iroquois” (93). This obviously resulted in a much more peaceful coexistence in Pennsylvania, since no conflicts have been noted in history.
It’s quite sad that we have been brainwashed to think so poorly of the American Indians. They are very spiritual, peaceful peoples, who were grossly taken advantage of. They truly deserve all our respect; after all, they were here long before we were. The facts have been rearranged, forgotten, ignored or changed to suit and uphold the American ideals of freedom. Call me unpatriotic, a traitor to my own country, but this period, along with several others, of our "Great" Country's history is shameful and embarassing.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Module 2- Cultural Development: The result of many factors
I find it quite absurd to think that anyone would think that the development of different cultures across the planet differ due to biological differences. This said, until I read Diamonds discussion of this subject, I would have not been able to give and support another explanation. Diamond presents a wonderful argument against such a close-minded concept. He founds his ideas and examples so well it’s hard to see it any other way then his. Although the question he asks is of the history of Human cultures, he pulls from many different areas of study to support his ideas and draw parallels between concepts. He reaches to science, specifically biology, when he speaks of the effect that disease and epidemics had on different cultures. He does not speak of the peoples themselves and their innate immunity or lack there of, but of the presence of the sources of these diseases among different cultures. Reaching to geography and climatology, he discusses the axis’s of the different continents and how that affected animal migrations and the spread of vegetations. And this affected many different aspects of development, from agriculture, to domestication of animals to warfare technologies and so on. He also called upon geography again to explain why certain parts of the world developed slower due to the conditions of the land, such as insurmountable deserts, treacherous mountain ranges and unruly bodies of water. These things posed as a barrier between different peoples, preventing trading of goods, mixing of cultures, education, expansion and so on. He uses the island of Tasmania as an example. Tasmania is completely isolated from other cultures, lying 130 miles southeast of Australia, and therefore did not have the opportunity to trade, interact with or advance with other cultures. With such a through anasys of this sensitive questions and so much evidence proving his statements, Diamond shows that it is really necessary to think out side of the box, and look at things from different angle, and to consider all factors before coming to a conclusion, something I will remind myself to do in future writings or discussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
