Takaki concludes in Chapter 2 that the “white” Europeans were creating a border between civilization and savagery based on their assumptions and views, and that their progress depended on the demise of the Indians.
Europeans came to the New World as a foreign peoples and were viewed by the Indians based on things familiar to them. Dreams of Indians anticipated the arrival of strangers, but the result of their coming could not be seen (25). Social constructions of civilization and savagery were developing in America and identity was becoming based on race. Before sailing to America, the English considered Irish savages and made them targets of violence. The English then thought it their “duty” to educate Irish “brutes,” who were considered different based on their different culture (28). Once the English encountered the Indians they then began thinking there might be an alternate type of savagery. However, Indians were incorporated in the definition of savagery, which was based on the Irish initially (29). The English noticed one distinctive physical characteristic of the Indians, their skin color (31). This characteristic began to identify Indians racially. The English thought that Indians were uncivilized, lacking “Christianity, cities, letters, clothing, and swords,” (31). They believed that it was their “duty” to bring the Indians to “civil and Christian” government (33). Also, they viewed several situations as signs from God, giving them the right to in a sense exterminate the Indians. Columbus had mislead Europeans about the greatness of the New World, resulting in an overpopulation and lack of resources. Indians were then forced to work for the “whites.” The Indians were also forced off of their lands and killed off in order for the progress of the Europeans.
Were the Indians actually savages? Absolutely not. Indians were highly agricultural and had plenty to live from before the Europeans came. They were simply different from the Europeans, and the Europeans did not know how to accept and adjust to this difference. Indians were not stupid either. The means by which they survived were advanced and intelligent even for today. A savage is untamed or brutal. The Indians cannot be classified under this definition. They only fought to keep what was theirs, and actually welcomed the strangers at first.
I feel that the Europeans were savages if anyone was. Their brutality and force toward the Irish and the Indians was inhumane and basically…wrong. I do not believe they had the “right” to take over the New World. I only feel their assumptions and beliefs, along with their fear and change misled them to the conclusions of which were wrong.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Meaning of Difference
The conclusion that Rosenblum and Travis come to is that sex, race, sexual orientation, as well as gender and class can each be explained as a “socially created dichotomy.” American culture has also adopted interpretations for the differences in these subjects and what the differences mean.
Rosenblum and Travis state that there are several similarities in the construction of categories in race, sexual orientation, class, and gender (19). For each there are certain divisions, which are seen to be the ONLY possibilities: for race there is either black and white or white and nonwhite; for sexual orientation there is gay and straight; for class there is poor and middle class; and for gender there is femininity and masculinity. Sexual orientation and race are both described as “more straightforward than [they] really [are],” (19). Rosenblum and Travis emphasize how people choose to categorize sexual orientation and race into only two separate groups (20). Thus, everyone is asked to choose one race and one sexual orientation out of two choices for each. On the subject of sexual orientation, Rosenblum and Travis say “there is no necessary correspondence between identity and sexual behavior,” (20). Therefore, one’s behavior is not directly related to one’s actual identity. This means that “gay” is a title that can be given to a person no matter what he or she does. Also, the different groups of sexual orientation along with the groups of race struggle with the assignment of superior to one group and inferior to the other group. With one group being considered superior to the other, a sense of inequality arises. Just like we assume with color of skin, we assume with sexual orientation that it “tells us something meaningful about a person,” (21). Class is not seen as a major category of discussion with the American emphasis on race and sexual orientation (21). Even though the two groups created from social class are the poor and the middle class, there has been a recent increase in the rich-poor gap and wealth distribution has become more unequal. The more realistic division would then be between the rich and the poor. “Americans explain success and failure in terms of individual merit rather than economic or social forces,” (21). Poverty is being viewed by some as the “lack of effort.” Concerning sex, some people have conflicting physical and psychological attributes and feel compelled to achieve a consistency. The only ways available to achieve this consistency are through surgery or psychotherapy. It makes more sense to people to change who they are rather than accepting a difference, or inconsistency (23).
Are the negative effects of social dichotomy irreversible? In the world today, I would be tempted to say yes because it seems that social dichotomy in itself is irreversible. However, I do believe that it is possible to make things “not as bad.” Americans, as a nation need to put less emphasis on the divisions among themselves that they have created. Based on history, there have been positive steps taken in the subjects of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and class. However, there is always room to improve.
I think that it is wrong for divisions to be superior and inferior. I feel equality is one key to a better society. The gap between the rich and the poor has to be reduced somehow. The fact that it is increasing, and the rich are getting richer does not seem right at all. Perspective has a lot to do with the current situations. We all need to be able to put ourselves in other peoples’ shoes. If we can’t see a problem, then we can’t fix it.
Rosenblum and Travis state that there are several similarities in the construction of categories in race, sexual orientation, class, and gender (19). For each there are certain divisions, which are seen to be the ONLY possibilities: for race there is either black and white or white and nonwhite; for sexual orientation there is gay and straight; for class there is poor and middle class; and for gender there is femininity and masculinity. Sexual orientation and race are both described as “more straightforward than [they] really [are],” (19). Rosenblum and Travis emphasize how people choose to categorize sexual orientation and race into only two separate groups (20). Thus, everyone is asked to choose one race and one sexual orientation out of two choices for each. On the subject of sexual orientation, Rosenblum and Travis say “there is no necessary correspondence between identity and sexual behavior,” (20). Therefore, one’s behavior is not directly related to one’s actual identity. This means that “gay” is a title that can be given to a person no matter what he or she does. Also, the different groups of sexual orientation along with the groups of race struggle with the assignment of superior to one group and inferior to the other group. With one group being considered superior to the other, a sense of inequality arises. Just like we assume with color of skin, we assume with sexual orientation that it “tells us something meaningful about a person,” (21). Class is not seen as a major category of discussion with the American emphasis on race and sexual orientation (21). Even though the two groups created from social class are the poor and the middle class, there has been a recent increase in the rich-poor gap and wealth distribution has become more unequal. The more realistic division would then be between the rich and the poor. “Americans explain success and failure in terms of individual merit rather than economic or social forces,” (21). Poverty is being viewed by some as the “lack of effort.” Concerning sex, some people have conflicting physical and psychological attributes and feel compelled to achieve a consistency. The only ways available to achieve this consistency are through surgery or psychotherapy. It makes more sense to people to change who they are rather than accepting a difference, or inconsistency (23).
Are the negative effects of social dichotomy irreversible? In the world today, I would be tempted to say yes because it seems that social dichotomy in itself is irreversible. However, I do believe that it is possible to make things “not as bad.” Americans, as a nation need to put less emphasis on the divisions among themselves that they have created. Based on history, there have been positive steps taken in the subjects of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, and class. However, there is always room to improve.
I think that it is wrong for divisions to be superior and inferior. I feel equality is one key to a better society. The gap between the rich and the poor has to be reduced somehow. The fact that it is increasing, and the rich are getting richer does not seem right at all. Perspective has a lot to do with the current situations. We all need to be able to put ourselves in other peoples’ shoes. If we can’t see a problem, then we can’t fix it.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress
In Chapter 1: “Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress,” Zinn concludes that Columbus is a questionable hero. Columbus did unintentionally “find” America, but natives already lived there. Also, Columbus’ actions to these natives in his journey of greed and selfishness are not admirable actions.
Zinn states that history must be viewed through several perspectives, not just those of the so called “heroes” such as Columbus. “The Arawaks welcomed Columbus and his men with gifts,” and Columbus took advantage of them (3). Columbus even said “They would make fine servants…” (3). Columbus took some natives by force on the very first island he came to in order to try to obtain “information.” He was greedy and needed to find where the gold was. Columbus was promised 10% of profits as long as gold and spices were brought back to Spain, so he needed to find some somewhere (4). Furthering his selfishness, Columbus claimed he noticed land the evening before the first man actually did, because the first to notice land was rewarded greatly with a pension (5). As Columbus explored Hispaniola, his men got into a fight with Indians because they did not trade AS MANY “bows and arrows as he and his men wanted,” (5). His reports back to Spain “stretched the truth” a little bit so he could return with even more ships and more men. He forced natives to search for gold, and at times cut off the hands of those who found none. Natives began to commit suicide rather than be killed by Columbus and his men. Zinn states that children learn in history books that Columbus is a hero, and all the killing is not recorded. However, Zinn says “Total control led to total cruelty,” and “a history of conquest, slavery, and death,” (8). This best summarizes his argument that Columbus may not just be a hero. Zinn prefers to tell the story through the victims, the Arawaks, and believes that history should “emphasize new possibilities.” Maybe Columbus was not a hero, and maybe the natives were not inferior. The natives were very advanced agriculturally, and smarter than given credit. Toward the conclusion of Chapter 1 Zinn poses the question, “Was all this bloodshed and deceit-…-a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?” (14).
What are the consequences of Zinn’s conclusion for our world today? The views and information provided in Chapter 1 create wander in many minds. Maybe other heroes are not so heroic, such as Columbus. Genocide and treating natives as inferior were not needed for the progress of the human race. People may also wander how much of the whole story do we know. Not all sides are known, and probably will never be know, unless a time machine is one day successful. This just makes the world today realize how much we actually are not sure of.
Columbus cannot be completely blamed for his view of inferiors because the nobility in Spain only made up about 2% of the population, yet managed to own roughly 95% of the land. Also, Jews and Moors had been driven out of Spain because of its Catholicism. Even though his actions were not moral or right, maybe Columbus did not know any better. If you’re not taught right from wrong, how do you know? I think that Columbus is not just a hero, but he is also a criminal for murder and deceit. He was also a greedy and selfish man, and I do agree with Zinn that different views must be considered in order to see more than just the one side that others choose to tell.
Zinn states that history must be viewed through several perspectives, not just those of the so called “heroes” such as Columbus. “The Arawaks welcomed Columbus and his men with gifts,” and Columbus took advantage of them (3). Columbus even said “They would make fine servants…” (3). Columbus took some natives by force on the very first island he came to in order to try to obtain “information.” He was greedy and needed to find where the gold was. Columbus was promised 10% of profits as long as gold and spices were brought back to Spain, so he needed to find some somewhere (4). Furthering his selfishness, Columbus claimed he noticed land the evening before the first man actually did, because the first to notice land was rewarded greatly with a pension (5). As Columbus explored Hispaniola, his men got into a fight with Indians because they did not trade AS MANY “bows and arrows as he and his men wanted,” (5). His reports back to Spain “stretched the truth” a little bit so he could return with even more ships and more men. He forced natives to search for gold, and at times cut off the hands of those who found none. Natives began to commit suicide rather than be killed by Columbus and his men. Zinn states that children learn in history books that Columbus is a hero, and all the killing is not recorded. However, Zinn says “Total control led to total cruelty,” and “a history of conquest, slavery, and death,” (8). This best summarizes his argument that Columbus may not just be a hero. Zinn prefers to tell the story through the victims, the Arawaks, and believes that history should “emphasize new possibilities.” Maybe Columbus was not a hero, and maybe the natives were not inferior. The natives were very advanced agriculturally, and smarter than given credit. Toward the conclusion of Chapter 1 Zinn poses the question, “Was all this bloodshed and deceit-…-a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?” (14).
What are the consequences of Zinn’s conclusion for our world today? The views and information provided in Chapter 1 create wander in many minds. Maybe other heroes are not so heroic, such as Columbus. Genocide and treating natives as inferior were not needed for the progress of the human race. People may also wander how much of the whole story do we know. Not all sides are known, and probably will never be know, unless a time machine is one day successful. This just makes the world today realize how much we actually are not sure of.
Columbus cannot be completely blamed for his view of inferiors because the nobility in Spain only made up about 2% of the population, yet managed to own roughly 95% of the land. Also, Jews and Moors had been driven out of Spain because of its Catholicism. Even though his actions were not moral or right, maybe Columbus did not know any better. If you’re not taught right from wrong, how do you know? I think that Columbus is not just a hero, but he is also a criminal for murder and deceit. He was also a greedy and selfish man, and I do agree with Zinn that different views must be considered in order to see more than just the one side that others choose to tell.
Introducing Micahf
Hello, my name is Micah Fashner and I am currently a sophomore taking Introduction to Ethnic Studies with Melissa Altman. I have never done a blog before, so here goes nothing. I am from Piqua, OH. which is about 100 miles straight south of BG down I-75. I have enjoyed playing basketball pretty much my whole life, and like other sports as well. I am part American Indian, and I really like chocolate. I also like watching movies, and that is a brief summary of me. Nice to meet you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
