Brian Gerker
ETHN 101
Reading Journal Entry #3
8-28-2007
Howard Zinn “Drawing the Color Line”
Thesis from “Drawing the Color Line”: “ In the English colonies, slavery developed quickly into a regular institution, into the normal labor relation of blacks to whites. With it developed that special racial feeling . . . that accompanied the inferior position of blacks in America for the next 350 years: that combination of inferior status and derogatory thought we call racism.”
In “Drawing the Color Line,” Zinn tells the accounts of the black slaves of early America. He tells how the blacks were stripped of their homes and their land in Africa and brought to America. Also, he tells how the blacks were forced onto the slave ships where they were locked up together like a can of sardines. Zinn also offers impressions of how the blacks were forced to labor the land in America for the whites because of their inability to survive without slave labor. Zinn provides details about the slave trade and how many were only looking to profit from the slaves, whether selling them or working them in the fields.
A statement that could be made to argue against Zinn would be that the colonists needed the slaves to survive, that slavery was necessary. A counterargument against Zinn could also be that the slaves needed the cruel treatment to be kept in line, or that the blacks could have rebelled if they were not properly supervised. It could be said that the whites controlling the slaves was a necessary way to ensure that the expansion of America would be a success.
After the reading, I felt that cruelty towards blacks is completely wrong. Forcing blacks of Africa to endure those long ship rides in such tight quarters is an act of great evil. Forcing people into those kind of conditions is not right. Also, I could not believe how people did not care about the African people, and only cared for their own personal gain, by selling them off for profit. I see how the white people needed their help to maintain their lives in America, but they did not need to treat the slaves so poorly. It also could have been possible for the whites to double their efforts for their survival rather than exploit a certain race for their own gain, or to use a race of people just so they can live out their expansion dreams of America.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Entry #2 Ronald Takaki "'The Tempest' in the Wilderness"
Brian Gerker
ETHN 101
Reading Journal Entry #2
8-26-2007
Ronald Takaki “’The Tempest’ in the Wilderness” from “A Different Mirror”
Thesis from “’The Tempest’ in the Wilderness”: “ Indeed, “The Tempest” can be approached as a fascinating tale that served as a masquerade for the creation of a new society in America. Seen in this light, the play invites us to view English expansion not only as imperialism, but also as a defining moment in the making of an English-American identity based on race.”
In “’The Tempest’ in the Wilderness,” Takaki is telling the story of discovering America from the discoverer’s point of view. He states how the Indians, as recorded by many European explorers, were vermin and devils, and needed to be removed from the land or enslaved. Takaki explains how some believed the colonizing of America by Europeans was inevitable. It was stated that God must want things to be in favor of the Europeans because of spreading diseases that killed many Indians. Also the Indians, like the Irish, were believed to be savage beasts that needed to be enslaved or controlled by someone of greater intelligence and power. So from this point of view that Takaki offers, the Europeans thought that they must create another society in the Americas.
One question that can be raised about Takaki’s arguments is, shouldn’t the Indians have been entitled to the American lands and their own freedom, since they were the first inhabitants? They had the rights to the land and it’s resources long before any Europeans came along, so it should have been the Indians be right. Because the Indians did not seem superior to their invaders should not mean that they have to give up their homes and their lives to compensate for the Europeans greediness.
After the reading, I did not act with very much surprise about the European invader’s point of view. I knew that they wanted the Americans for expansion and development before reading this. Also, I did not particularly care for the invader’s views upon discovering America. Destroying the Indians and viewing them as “devils” is completely ludicrous, just for expansion. Just because some people, like the Indians and Irish were at the time, much like minorities, shouldn’t mean that they needed to be conquered or enslaved under someone else’s control.
ETHN 101
Reading Journal Entry #2
8-26-2007
Ronald Takaki “’The Tempest’ in the Wilderness” from “A Different Mirror”
Thesis from “’The Tempest’ in the Wilderness”: “ Indeed, “The Tempest” can be approached as a fascinating tale that served as a masquerade for the creation of a new society in America. Seen in this light, the play invites us to view English expansion not only as imperialism, but also as a defining moment in the making of an English-American identity based on race.”
In “’The Tempest’ in the Wilderness,” Takaki is telling the story of discovering America from the discoverer’s point of view. He states how the Indians, as recorded by many European explorers, were vermin and devils, and needed to be removed from the land or enslaved. Takaki explains how some believed the colonizing of America by Europeans was inevitable. It was stated that God must want things to be in favor of the Europeans because of spreading diseases that killed many Indians. Also the Indians, like the Irish, were believed to be savage beasts that needed to be enslaved or controlled by someone of greater intelligence and power. So from this point of view that Takaki offers, the Europeans thought that they must create another society in the Americas.
One question that can be raised about Takaki’s arguments is, shouldn’t the Indians have been entitled to the American lands and their own freedom, since they were the first inhabitants? They had the rights to the land and it’s resources long before any Europeans came along, so it should have been the Indians be right. Because the Indians did not seem superior to their invaders should not mean that they have to give up their homes and their lives to compensate for the Europeans greediness.
After the reading, I did not act with very much surprise about the European invader’s point of view. I knew that they wanted the Americans for expansion and development before reading this. Also, I did not particularly care for the invader’s views upon discovering America. Destroying the Indians and viewing them as “devils” is completely ludicrous, just for expansion. Just because some people, like the Indians and Irish were at the time, much like minorities, shouldn’t mean that they needed to be conquered or enslaved under someone else’s control.
Introduction!
Welcome to Brian Gerker's blog. I am a sophomore student majoring in Accounting. I usually keep very busy either with schoolwork, hanging out, or playing video games. I hope you find my blog both entertaining and helpful.
Signing off..........
Signing off..........
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Entry #1 Howard Zinn, "Columbus, the Arawaks, and Human Progress"
Brian Gerker
ETHN 101
Reading Journal Entry #1
8-22-2007
Howard Zinn, “Columbus, the Arawaks, and Human Progress”
Thesis: “ Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas, a history of conquest, slavery and death. But in the history books given to children in the United States, for generation after generation, it all starts with heroic adventure—there is no bloodshed—and Columbus Day is a celebration.”
Zinn’s argument is centered towards teaching the truth of the history that happened once Columbus discovered America. Truths that Zinn brings forth include the slaughter of the Indians and how the Indians were used for slaves, mining, and sex. He also argues how Columbus was more concerned for gold and the land and his own well-being than he was concerned with the Indian’s lives.
A question that can be posed to Zinn’s point of view is “How do you teach this history to elementary children?” Zinn believes that the truth of the killing of Indians and many other gruesome details should be taught in place of the view that Columbus is a hero, but that is not content suitable for kids. His argument is clear and has it’s valid points, but certain precautions should be taken before taking this point of view and re-writing history books. Using the example of teaching children, some measures could be enacted to teach them what really happened, but with great caution. It is important to teach children of ethnic differences and the European invasion of the Indians, but to teach young kids to the extent the Zinn thinks should be done will cause more problems than are solved. Zinn’s views should be acknowledged, but to replace them into kids texts is going a bit far.
After reading the material, I was initially surprised. I have been taught before the Columbus was not as heroic as he is remembered for, but I did not know the details that Zinn provided. It actually made me think a lot more about people’s differences and how ridiculous it is to exploit a race just for personal profit or gain. It really showed a viewpoint I had not known before, and now knowing this, I think Zinn is correct that both sides of the story should be taught. Although, I still do not think they should be taught to children in detail, but at least recognized.
ETHN 101
Reading Journal Entry #1
8-22-2007
Howard Zinn, “Columbus, the Arawaks, and Human Progress”
Thesis: “ Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas, a history of conquest, slavery and death. But in the history books given to children in the United States, for generation after generation, it all starts with heroic adventure—there is no bloodshed—and Columbus Day is a celebration.”
Zinn’s argument is centered towards teaching the truth of the history that happened once Columbus discovered America. Truths that Zinn brings forth include the slaughter of the Indians and how the Indians were used for slaves, mining, and sex. He also argues how Columbus was more concerned for gold and the land and his own well-being than he was concerned with the Indian’s lives.
A question that can be posed to Zinn’s point of view is “How do you teach this history to elementary children?” Zinn believes that the truth of the killing of Indians and many other gruesome details should be taught in place of the view that Columbus is a hero, but that is not content suitable for kids. His argument is clear and has it’s valid points, but certain precautions should be taken before taking this point of view and re-writing history books. Using the example of teaching children, some measures could be enacted to teach them what really happened, but with great caution. It is important to teach children of ethnic differences and the European invasion of the Indians, but to teach young kids to the extent the Zinn thinks should be done will cause more problems than are solved. Zinn’s views should be acknowledged, but to replace them into kids texts is going a bit far.
After reading the material, I was initially surprised. I have been taught before the Columbus was not as heroic as he is remembered for, but I did not know the details that Zinn provided. It actually made me think a lot more about people’s differences and how ridiculous it is to exploit a race just for personal profit or gain. It really showed a viewpoint I had not known before, and now knowing this, I think Zinn is correct that both sides of the story should be taught. Although, I still do not think they should be taught to children in detail, but at least recognized.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)