Monday, June 22, 2009
My view
So I have started reading this very different view on our nations history. It seems to suck you in and you find yourself agreeing with everything Zinn says. Every once in a while I stop and just think about what I have known for countless years of study in a different variety of history classes to what Zinn is pointing out. The thing is even though Zinn wants to show his audience that for example Columbus ruthlessly killed and enslaved thousands of Indians, he still had the idea to travel west and the belief that the Earth is round. He risked everything to explore new possibilities. Now I am not dismissing his actions with the Native Americans, but Columbus did start a new era of exploration. The question I have is: Where would we be now as the United States of America if Columbus had not done what he did. If the Puritan Elite had not cleared the way in the north. Also, I have spent some time wondering why the Indians in New England did not unit. I know they had spent countless centuries in the past fighting each other, but would not an invasion of "white" Europeans have some effect on the natives? Once again I am not dismissing what happened to the Indians. I believe it was a horrible act of genocide and that every human should understand what took place. I am truly excited to read the rest of this book, it is so interesting to see a viewpoint that so many human beings seem to ignore today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To answer your questioon about the Native Americans not uniting against the European we would have to delve deeper into the Native American's history. Sure they had fought a lotin the past, but at the time of the European settling the Native Americans had just put their differences aside and formed the Iroquois(?) League, which consisted of 5 major East Coast tribal nations and a bunch of smaller nations inbetween. The Natives that lived near Plymouth Rock decided to extend this new found brotherhood to the newcomers from across the sea. This of course led to the ultimate demise of the Native Americans, one simple act of kindness. Plus it's not like the Europeans came on shore lugging cannons behind them and a musket on every shoulder.
ReplyDeletesorry it was Robert S. who said that.
ReplyDeleteGentlemen,
ReplyDeleteGreat job. This is an excellent discussion on the first chapter. I only have two questions...
Andy,
Does Columbus get a an ok nod because he started the "era of exploration" or would one of these other travellers gotten the title instead?
Kevin/Robert S.,
So, the Indians were kind to the in-coming settlers and got creamed for it...does that mean it is there fault or that the Europeans are really mean?
Keep it going guys.
Andy-I agree a lot with what you are saying about Zinn. He is an incredibly persuasive writer and I, too, often have to step back and compare what I have always learned and Zinn's point-of-view. Now on Columbus and the first chapter...I believe that Columbus's actions and treatment of the Indians was wrong. He could have handled it much better, especially since the Indians were so kind to him and his crew. However, simply looking at his discovery of America and all of the risks he took, it was the beginning of a new age in which our country was created. I agree with Zinn in that we often just look at that fact and ignore all the bad that he did for "human progress". I really enjoy reading Zinn because I agree that you must see all sides of History. I do believe, however, that it is worth studying so that we, as a nation, do not make the same mistakes again. The racism and unfair treatment that we inflicted on these natives was cruel and now we should make it right and not behave the same to others. Unfortunately, we didn't and simply found someone else that was easier to pick on-African Americans. These times brought a deep feeling of white superiority into the world. We can't change the past or justify the actions of these men. However, I feel that-as I said before-we must learn from this and change the future through it. To me, that is the value of history-learning from mistakes and successes.
ReplyDeleteHallelujah, It is refreshing to see you reading and actually digesting what Zinn is saying. Everyone is thinking as opposed to simply swallowing every word hook, line, and sinker. My question is Did the disaster that befell the Indians solely the fault of Columbus? or Was it inevitable? Finally, I would like to caution everyone of the pitfall known as "presentism" that is the temptation of evaluating the past using modern values and mores. Always try to keep things in perspective. What we may find repugnant by today's standards may have been acceptable in the past. That may not excuse things but that is the way we must look at history. Excellent work everyone.
ReplyDeleteMr. Hooten
Mr. hooten i know what you are say by telling us not to fall into "presentism" but isnt that the whole purpose of this book. I mean the slave traders didnt think they were doing anything wrong but hundreds of thousands of people died through the slave trade. Columbus didnt think he was doing any thing wrong but he enslaved and killed thousands of people his culture deemed "inhuman". so shouldnt we view what happened in history from both sides like Zinn stated in his book when he was talking about who the book was about?
ReplyDeleteHey everyone sorry for the late reply i was on vacation. Thanks for the wonderful input! Now i have some more questions to think about as i read this book. Thanks for agreeing with me Kaitlyn, you brought up some very good points. It's important that our nation realizes what happened, but don't blame the United States. This happened way before our founding fathers declared our independence. I get what your saying though.
ReplyDeleteMr. Hooten, i think the Indians where doomed the minute the first European stepped onto the new world. If it didn't happen then it would have happened later. That's my view on the subject.
I'm really excited about this honestly. It's great to have fellow students to talk to about an awesome subject! Thanks guys.
In my personal opinio of the Europeans it was not their fault it was the mindset in which they were accostamed(?) to and maybe they were put off a little by this uncanny nature the Native Americans were showing them, so they didn't know how to react. We'll never really know i geuss.
ReplyDeleteRobert S.
I disagree with you, because the Europeans werent idiots. How would they not know how to react to friendly Native Americans that showed no sign of violence at first. They were driven to impress royalty back in Europe even if that meant killing and enslaving thousands of Indians. End of story.
ReplyDeleteAndy I totally agree with you. As soon as the Europeans saw the Native Americans they knew they could be used. They didnt see them as people, they only saw them as something that they could make a profit off of.
ReplyDeleteAndy- When you say dont blame the United States for what happened to the Indians, wasnt it the United States/some of the founding fathers that started the "Indian Removal" or the movement and slaughter of thousands of Indians? They did this for their own benefits, and did it deceitfully. Such as making treaties that they ALWAYS broke.
All of you have made exceedingly valid points but, I wonder, has anyone considered the factor of human nature? I AM NOT saying that ANY of the cruel acts that were committed are justifiable because of natural tendencies because they obviously aren't. What I'm saying is if you look back, past our forefathers and Columbus, you'll find that since the beginning of time war, exploitation, racism, and especially the lust for power and wealth have been a part of human history. That means that there is apparently an element within people that causes them to do terribly horrid things. Whether that element is triggered or not is what I believe to be the defining point. It's along the same lines as the situation Zinn was talking about when he was referring to human tendencies. Regardless of color or class, people will join together but only if a common enemy comes along to trigger that feeling of brotherhood and unity among such a wide variety of people. Most people would outright disagree with what Columbus, the settlers, and countless others have done, but that is because that element of cruelty and inhumanity wasn't triggered. Although, if a person were raised in a certain enviorement, then the envioronment and the mindset produced while growing up in that envioronment would be possible triggers to set off that element just like a commmon enemy triggered the element of fraternity. My point you ask? Well if it wasn't already obvious, despite what is said, history isn't black and white but a composition of gray areas and some rainbow colored ones as well. So when you look at events in history you can't look for a sole cause. There were many outcomes from the situation with the Native Americans. Most were bad but some were helpful. An event that has many outcomes usually has many causes, so Columbus, the United States,or the Native Americans cannot take sole blame. Each of them had a part to play in igniting the horrors that ensued. All I'm saying is that human nature had a part to play as well. Also what happened had nothing to do with inevitability because it was all preventable, but due to the choices made it happened.
ReplyDelete