Chapter 26
1. George Kennan's "long telegram" contributed to the development of the Cold War mainly because it elevated the American fear of the spread of communism. The telegram exemplifies the feelings (ie. insecure, fearful of direct foreign contact, and fearful of foreign penetration) and motives of Russian rulers at the time, and provides an "explanation for their behavior." Russian rulers (namely, Stalin) desired a communist takeover of the world and a total worldwide overthrow of the capitalist system. This led to the adoption of the containment policy, established by President Truman with influence from Kennan and others, which was meant to quarantine communism where it already existed.
2. The significance of the Truman Doctrine is that it encouraged people "to assist [the] free peoples of the world against the totalitarianism of Communist governments," and "keep hope alive." In this speech, Truman declares it is the job of America to be a leader in the retaliation against totalitarian regimes that seek to institute themselves upon free nations, and to help them maintain their national integrity. Truman also acknowledges that if America were to fail in helping to oppose totalitarian regimes, not only would it endanger world peace, but also the welfare of the United States. In the midst of a potential worldwide communist takeover, this was an uplifting speech meant to curb fear and revitalize Americans.
3. The part of Andrei Vyshinsky's attack on the Marshall plan that was likely propaganda was the part stating that the United States was trying to put European "under the direct economic and political control of the United States." Another piece of propaganda appears to be the idea that, with the help of the United Kingdom and France, the United States was attempting to divide Europe into two camps by forming a bloc of "European countries hostile to the interests of the democratic countries of Eastern Europe and most particularly to the interests of the Soviet Union." Neither of these were the purpose of the Marshall Plan, but rather, it was meant to help the nations of Europe revive their economies, while also fortifying democratic governments.
The part of Vyshinsky's speech that may have reflected legitimate concerns of the Soviet Union was the part about the Marshall Plan making European countries "dependent on the interests of American monopolies." However, once again, this was not the intention of the Marshall Plan. The United States was simply just trying to help European countries repair their economies by giving them economic aid. In fact, the Marshall Plan did help Western Europe achieve self-sustaining growth by the 1950s, ended any true threat of Communist political successes in the region, and greatly increased United States exports to Europe which boosted U.S. prosperity.
4. The constitutional reason Lippmann thinks that the containment policy was ill-suited to the United States was because it is a policy of shifts and maneuvers that may be better suited to the government of the Soviet Union. Economically, Lippmann thinks the containment policy is unsuited to the American economy which is "unregimented and uncontrolled, and therefore cannot be administered according to a plan." In other words, the American capitalistic economy is not regulated enough and unpredictable. Lastly, politically he thinks the containment policy is not practical for the U.S. because although the United States is a great country, it cannot "muster 'unalterable counterforce' at all individual sectors," especially on the massive Euasian continent. In addition, the containment policy has to be enforced "persistently and patiently for an indefinite period of time," which the American military is unable to do because it is "distinguished by its mobility, its speed, its range and its offensive striking force."
Chapter 27
1. One of the tactics or strategies that Senator McCarthy used in his 1950s speech that later became known as McCarthyism is accusing individuals of being disloyal, Communist traitors without proper regard for evidence. He tries to justify his accusations by stating that they "would appear to be either card-carrying members of certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nonetheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy." This is not good, concrete evidence, especially because of his use of the world "appear". This means that he has not actually proven that those he speaks of are Communists, but rather that he merely suspects them of being such. He makes these accused persons appear to be sinister to this observers by stating that their actions permit the enemy to guide and shape U.S. policy. Senator McCarthy's speech was a propaganda to get people to support his indictment that the government is infested with Communists.
Lastly, McCarthy might be called a populist because he claimed to support the people as opposed the elite.
2. In his 1961 farewell address, President Eisenhower warned against increasing military influence, and the potential dangers new scientific technologies proposed. Although he made it clear that it is important to keep the military maintained, he also states that it could endanger American liberties or the democratic process if Americans did not guard against the "acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." The then-new innovations in military/scientific technology had become the new face of warfare, and were thus responsible for the drastic changes in the "industrial-military posture." These dangers were a result of the cold war because as the Americans' fears of a Communist takeover increased, it pushed the military to take more action and for new technological innovations. Also, Eisenhower did not want the arms race between the U.S. and Russia to get out of control.
3. Int the case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Supreme Court's evidence used to strike down "separate but equal" was that by separating African American students from other students (namely, white students), a feeling of inferiority is implanted in their minds. Not to mention, African American schools were not as well funded as white schools. For both of these reasons "separate but equal" was not really equal. This evidence was controversial because many white people would argue that African Americans were stupid that they did not want their children going to school with them. However, African American students are just as capable of participating, learning, and doing well in school as students of any other race, including Caucasians.
4. In "Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds, the wealthy upper class is blamed for the growing conformity in American society. She describes how these people bask in their wealth, and go to universities that don't teach these people how to be individuals. Even though they many wind up pursuing different careers, they end up living very similar lives. They provide for the same type of lives for their children, and thus a cycle has formed (a cycle of wealth, one could call it).
5. Of the four documents, the exerts from Senator McCarthy's speech and President Eisenhower's Farewell Address can be most traced to the effects of the Cold War. The war caused many to suspect members of the government where Communist traitors, not just McCarthy, although he appears to have exploited this fear of Communist in government to get the media to focus on him and discredit the Truman administration. The Cold War was also the reason why Eisenhower warned against the increasing influence of the military, and to be cautious about new scientific technologies, especially in respect to the arm race (as it can be inferred).
In Addition, these documents appear to support the view that the 1950s was essentially an era of conformity and consenus. People were afraid to think differently because due to the fear of being accused of being a Communist; and because of the Red Scare, among other things, which exacerbated a nation-wise hatred for Communism. Also, there was a large increase in white-collar jobs, which led to somewhat of a social standard of life. This standard generally included, but was not limited to, a large suburban home, one or two cars (with a new one every two or three years), and a nuclear family.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Western Expansion (Textbook vs. Review Book Critique)
After reading the material relating to the western expansion of the United States from the textbook and the review book, I have come to the conclusion that the review book is an excellent supplement to, if not a brilliant replacement for, the textbook. The textbook gave appropriate information, however I find it to be unfavorable. The review book impeccably summarizes the textbook material without neglecting the quality of information, and is therefore more auspicious.
First of all, the textbook chapter was too lengthy. It gives a lot of information that is not necessary in order for the reader to comprehend the historical events that it is trying to impart. Honestly, thirty plus pages is too extensive and it took way too long to read. I find that it is much more difficult for me to learn from something so massive than from something that is condense and too the point. As I was reading the textbook, I often found myself daydreaming and reading passages without actually absorbing the information I was reading.
Secondly, the review book expresses the topic much better than the textbook. It states the facts, gives important side information, and is easy to understand. It only gives what is necessary for the reader to pass the Advanced Placement Examination, and not too much more. The textbook, on the other hand, does indeed give a lot of facts, however many of them are not significant enough to commit to memory. It tends to ramble about insignificant details that I frankly think take away from the main ideas. When I read for history, I do not want to be bombarded with trivial details; I just want a simple explanation of the main facts
Content-wise I find that both books pay sufficient attention to each topic, especially the effect of western expansion on the Native American Indians and the environment (i.e. the Indians’ forced movement to reservations, Indian wars, Indian population decrease, broken treaties, buffalo depletion, pollution, etc.). Nonetheless, both books appear to be sympathetic towards the Native Americans, with which I completely agree. They also effectively describe the positive affects of expansion on the United States, such as the booming mining industry, although not as extensively as the negative effects on the Native Americans. However, in order for either book to be a reliable and non-biased resource of information, it must show both the positive and negative effects, which they do.
In conclusion, based on my reading about western expansion from both sources, the review book offers outstanding coverage of the historical content presented in the textbook. The textbook is lengthy, boring, and gives too many details. The review book, conversely, is condensed, easy to read, direct. Both books, however, present the essential positive and negative effects of western expansion that make them dependable and non-biased sources of information. In my opinion, the review book is obviously the most favorable informational source.
First of all, the textbook chapter was too lengthy. It gives a lot of information that is not necessary in order for the reader to comprehend the historical events that it is trying to impart. Honestly, thirty plus pages is too extensive and it took way too long to read. I find that it is much more difficult for me to learn from something so massive than from something that is condense and too the point. As I was reading the textbook, I often found myself daydreaming and reading passages without actually absorbing the information I was reading.
Secondly, the review book expresses the topic much better than the textbook. It states the facts, gives important side information, and is easy to understand. It only gives what is necessary for the reader to pass the Advanced Placement Examination, and not too much more. The textbook, on the other hand, does indeed give a lot of facts, however many of them are not significant enough to commit to memory. It tends to ramble about insignificant details that I frankly think take away from the main ideas. When I read for history, I do not want to be bombarded with trivial details; I just want a simple explanation of the main facts
Content-wise I find that both books pay sufficient attention to each topic, especially the effect of western expansion on the Native American Indians and the environment (i.e. the Indians’ forced movement to reservations, Indian wars, Indian population decrease, broken treaties, buffalo depletion, pollution, etc.). Nonetheless, both books appear to be sympathetic towards the Native Americans, with which I completely agree. They also effectively describe the positive affects of expansion on the United States, such as the booming mining industry, although not as extensively as the negative effects on the Native Americans. However, in order for either book to be a reliable and non-biased resource of information, it must show both the positive and negative effects, which they do.
In conclusion, based on my reading about western expansion from both sources, the review book offers outstanding coverage of the historical content presented in the textbook. The textbook is lengthy, boring, and gives too many details. The review book, conversely, is condensed, easy to read, direct. Both books, however, present the essential positive and negative effects of western expansion that make them dependable and non-biased sources of information. In my opinion, the review book is obviously the most favorable informational source.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Federalist No. 10 : Prequel
The stability of the still very young United States is threatened by the presence of factions, groups of individuals who put and promote their own interests before those of the whole country. Factions tend to disregard the public interest and obtrude the rights of others. However, the Constitution establishes a system of government that is capable of predominating the chaos caused by factions.
There are really only two ways to control factions: remove its causes or control its effects. The former is impossible to do because of the nature of man, which is to consort with those with similar views and aspirations. Doing this would mean eradicating liberty or bestowing everyone with the same opinions and desires, which is of course unfeasible. Therefore, controlling the effects is the only way to control factions.
Factions are inevitable because there will always be some who do not agree with the majority. As previously stated, it is the nature of man to fraternize with those who are comparable to themselves. This will persist as long as men have dissimilar opinions, different amounts of wealth, and inconsistent amounts of property, which in fact seems to be the most significant cause of factions.
In America, a representative government has been established in which many elect the few who govern. This is unlike like direct (pure) democracies in which all the citizens participate directly in making the laws and is incapable of suppressing faction-caused issues. In this type of government, the most massive and strongest faction dominates and there is no protection for weaker factions or individuals against the actions of the superior. There needs to be some way to prevent a group from gaining too much power in government.
Those elected to govern should put the desires and interests of the people before their own, though within reason of course. An elected official could one day decide to deceive the people and implement selfish policies that could have a negative effect on the public, or even no effect at all. However, this is highly improbable in a nation as large as the United States of America. In large nations more representatives are selected by a greater number of people, therefore increasing the chance of qualified persons holding office and making deception more difficult. In small nations, the case is the exact opposite. In addition, factions will be abundant in large countries, yet they will be weaker compared to those of smaller countries with direct or pure democracies.
The purpose of the Constitution is to unite the thirteen states into a secure union. Although some states are far from the capitol and find it to be a hassle sending representatives the long distance, a strong centralized federal government is what will protect and rule the states the best.
There are really only two ways to control factions: remove its causes or control its effects. The former is impossible to do because of the nature of man, which is to consort with those with similar views and aspirations. Doing this would mean eradicating liberty or bestowing everyone with the same opinions and desires, which is of course unfeasible. Therefore, controlling the effects is the only way to control factions.
Factions are inevitable because there will always be some who do not agree with the majority. As previously stated, it is the nature of man to fraternize with those who are comparable to themselves. This will persist as long as men have dissimilar opinions, different amounts of wealth, and inconsistent amounts of property, which in fact seems to be the most significant cause of factions.
In America, a representative government has been established in which many elect the few who govern. This is unlike like direct (pure) democracies in which all the citizens participate directly in making the laws and is incapable of suppressing faction-caused issues. In this type of government, the most massive and strongest faction dominates and there is no protection for weaker factions or individuals against the actions of the superior. There needs to be some way to prevent a group from gaining too much power in government.
Those elected to govern should put the desires and interests of the people before their own, though within reason of course. An elected official could one day decide to deceive the people and implement selfish policies that could have a negative effect on the public, or even no effect at all. However, this is highly improbable in a nation as large as the United States of America. In large nations more representatives are selected by a greater number of people, therefore increasing the chance of qualified persons holding office and making deception more difficult. In small nations, the case is the exact opposite. In addition, factions will be abundant in large countries, yet they will be weaker compared to those of smaller countries with direct or pure democracies.
The purpose of the Constitution is to unite the thirteen states into a secure union. Although some states are far from the capitol and find it to be a hassle sending representatives the long distance, a strong centralized federal government is what will protect and rule the states the best.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Founding Brothers Summary
Preface: The Generation
The preface of Founding Brothers sets up the historical context and mood for the following chapters, putting an emphasis on the American Revolution, and its significance and inevitability. After the revolutions the astounding success and America’s liberation from Great Britain, no one was certain America could hold its own for long. It had not yet established an active government and was deemed likely by many to fall apart into individual states. However, the founding “fathers” were determined to have America survive as a successful nation, so they initiated the Constitutional Convention in 1787 during which the American Constitution was created.
Chapter One: The Duel
The first chapter of the novel pertains to the battle between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. One morning in the summer of 1804, the two conducted a duel near Weehawken, New Jersey following the code duello. It resulted in the death of Hamilton which consequently tainted Burr’s reputation. Hamilton was shot and killed, although not immediately, by one of two shots that were fired, between which a few seconds elapsed. In the aftermath, two stories where known amongst the public: the Hamiltonian version and the Burr version. The Hamiltonian version is that Burr was the first to fire and Hamilton impulsively fired into the air upon being shot. The Burr version is that Hamilton fired first, deliberately missing, and after about four or five seconds, Burr fired that fatal shot that killed Hamilton, who instantaneously fell to the ground. Although this version was almost undoubtedly incorrect, it was somewhat of a consensus amongst the public. Ironically, the Burr version is more believable because it contains the break between the two shots upon which was both sides agreed, therefore making Hamilton’s reflexive shot highly implausible. Apparently, the duel was the result of Hamilton offending Burr and then refusing to apologize.
Chapter Two: The Dinner
The chapter’s second chapter goes back to 18th century, before the events of the preceding chapter. Ellis tells Thomas Jefferson’s account of a dinner he held at his home in mid-June of 1790. Those he invited were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to discuss the future location of the nation’s capital. This topic was supplemented by conversations regarding the economic crisis of the times. The dinner led to a compromise between Madison and Hamilton in Madison would not vehemently oppose Hamilton’s financial plan in exchange for Hamilton’s support for the capital’s future location to be along the Potomac River, in order to placate the southern states. However, Ellis proposes that this compromise was not just the result of the single dinner but rather several discussions. Ultimately, George Washington decided that America’s capital would be established east of Georgetown, on the mouth of the Potomac, and was named Washington D.C. after Washington himself. Having originally promised it would be in proximity of the Pennsylvania border, the central street was named Pennsylvania Avenue in order to appease disappointed Pennsylvanians.
Chapter Three: The Silence
The third chapter of the novel involves a prominent dispute that almost broke apart the young nation. This argument was a result of petitions presented to the House of Representatives a few months prior to Jefferson’s dinner by two Quaker delegations calling for the end of the Africa slave trade. Those in favor of maintaining slavery in the United States were mainly the southern states, especially Georgia, represented by James Jackson, and South Carolina, represented by William Loughton Smith. They argued that Congress should ignore the petitions because the Constitution prohibited government action on the slave trade until 1808 anyway (even though emancipation had begun in most of the north) and that it was merely and attempt to achieve emancipation. They even took it so far as to threaten to succeed if the matter was not openly discussed. No one in the House took the initiative to refute the south’s allegations and this silence is what the chapter’s title refers to. In the end, there was no real national result. In order to end this dispute, James Madison passed a vote from the House (29-25) to amend the Constitution so that Congress would have no authority to interfere with slavery.
Chapter Four: Farewell
This chapter focuses on George Washington’s farewell address and thus his formal declination to serve a third term as president. Despite having been partially written in collaboration with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Washington’s farewell address included his and only his hopes for the future of the United States. Amongst the points that he stressed were the need for national unity, the danger of partisanship and party politics, and the foreign policy of neutrality and diplomatic independence from the tumultuous events occur in Europe at the time. Thanks to Washington, leaving office after two terms became customary for succeeding presidents, except for Franklin D. Roosevelt who served three full terms and died during his fourth. In 1951, the 22nd Amendment made it law that a president may only serve at most two terms. America was generally saddened by the retirement of such a great leader as George Washington, for he was seen by the population as a virtually god-like figure.
Chapter Five: The Collaborators
After the retirement of George Washington, the two leading candidates for the presidency were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both good friends and great competitors. However, Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Republican, and the two parties were becoming increasingly antagonistic towards each other. In 1796, John Adams was officially elected president and Jefferson vice-president. At that time there were no “tickets,” the top candidate became president and the second-best candidate became vice-president. Since they were from different parties, they had different agendas for their time in office and which inevitably lead to the demise of their friendship. At dinner with Washington in 1797, Jefferson informed Adams that he was not interested in joining his cabinet and the Republican Party did not intend to partake in the peace delegation Adams was sending to France. From then on Adams never again addressed Jefferson’s inclusion in policy making decisions.
In the 1800 election, the presidency was won by Jefferson with Aaron Burr as the vice-president. This was fundamentally the virtual end to the Federalist Party. After the election, Adams and Jefferson did not speak to one another for 12 long years.
Chapter Six: The Friendship
The book’s concluding chapter once again pertains to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. After 12 extensive years of silence between the two they finally began to reestablish their friendship through letter correspondence initiated by Adams that would last until their deaths. They both put forth a noticeable effort to reconcile and their long-held respect for each other overcame the bitterness from their past disputes. The letter correspondence consisted of 158 letters ending in 1826 when both men died. On the fiftieth anniversary of American independence in 1826, both Jefferson and Adams died respectively within approximately five hours of each other.
The preface of Founding Brothers sets up the historical context and mood for the following chapters, putting an emphasis on the American Revolution, and its significance and inevitability. After the revolutions the astounding success and America’s liberation from Great Britain, no one was certain America could hold its own for long. It had not yet established an active government and was deemed likely by many to fall apart into individual states. However, the founding “fathers” were determined to have America survive as a successful nation, so they initiated the Constitutional Convention in 1787 during which the American Constitution was created.
Chapter One: The Duel
The first chapter of the novel pertains to the battle between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. One morning in the summer of 1804, the two conducted a duel near Weehawken, New Jersey following the code duello. It resulted in the death of Hamilton which consequently tainted Burr’s reputation. Hamilton was shot and killed, although not immediately, by one of two shots that were fired, between which a few seconds elapsed. In the aftermath, two stories where known amongst the public: the Hamiltonian version and the Burr version. The Hamiltonian version is that Burr was the first to fire and Hamilton impulsively fired into the air upon being shot. The Burr version is that Hamilton fired first, deliberately missing, and after about four or five seconds, Burr fired that fatal shot that killed Hamilton, who instantaneously fell to the ground. Although this version was almost undoubtedly incorrect, it was somewhat of a consensus amongst the public. Ironically, the Burr version is more believable because it contains the break between the two shots upon which was both sides agreed, therefore making Hamilton’s reflexive shot highly implausible. Apparently, the duel was the result of Hamilton offending Burr and then refusing to apologize.
Chapter Two: The Dinner
The chapter’s second chapter goes back to 18th century, before the events of the preceding chapter. Ellis tells Thomas Jefferson’s account of a dinner he held at his home in mid-June of 1790. Those he invited were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to discuss the future location of the nation’s capital. This topic was supplemented by conversations regarding the economic crisis of the times. The dinner led to a compromise between Madison and Hamilton in Madison would not vehemently oppose Hamilton’s financial plan in exchange for Hamilton’s support for the capital’s future location to be along the Potomac River, in order to placate the southern states. However, Ellis proposes that this compromise was not just the result of the single dinner but rather several discussions. Ultimately, George Washington decided that America’s capital would be established east of Georgetown, on the mouth of the Potomac, and was named Washington D.C. after Washington himself. Having originally promised it would be in proximity of the Pennsylvania border, the central street was named Pennsylvania Avenue in order to appease disappointed Pennsylvanians.
Chapter Three: The Silence
The third chapter of the novel involves a prominent dispute that almost broke apart the young nation. This argument was a result of petitions presented to the House of Representatives a few months prior to Jefferson’s dinner by two Quaker delegations calling for the end of the Africa slave trade. Those in favor of maintaining slavery in the United States were mainly the southern states, especially Georgia, represented by James Jackson, and South Carolina, represented by William Loughton Smith. They argued that Congress should ignore the petitions because the Constitution prohibited government action on the slave trade until 1808 anyway (even though emancipation had begun in most of the north) and that it was merely and attempt to achieve emancipation. They even took it so far as to threaten to succeed if the matter was not openly discussed. No one in the House took the initiative to refute the south’s allegations and this silence is what the chapter’s title refers to. In the end, there was no real national result. In order to end this dispute, James Madison passed a vote from the House (29-25) to amend the Constitution so that Congress would have no authority to interfere with slavery.
Chapter Four: Farewell
This chapter focuses on George Washington’s farewell address and thus his formal declination to serve a third term as president. Despite having been partially written in collaboration with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Washington’s farewell address included his and only his hopes for the future of the United States. Amongst the points that he stressed were the need for national unity, the danger of partisanship and party politics, and the foreign policy of neutrality and diplomatic independence from the tumultuous events occur in Europe at the time. Thanks to Washington, leaving office after two terms became customary for succeeding presidents, except for Franklin D. Roosevelt who served three full terms and died during his fourth. In 1951, the 22nd Amendment made it law that a president may only serve at most two terms. America was generally saddened by the retirement of such a great leader as George Washington, for he was seen by the population as a virtually god-like figure.
Chapter Five: The Collaborators
After the retirement of George Washington, the two leading candidates for the presidency were John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both good friends and great competitors. However, Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Republican, and the two parties were becoming increasingly antagonistic towards each other. In 1796, John Adams was officially elected president and Jefferson vice-president. At that time there were no “tickets,” the top candidate became president and the second-best candidate became vice-president. Since they were from different parties, they had different agendas for their time in office and which inevitably lead to the demise of their friendship. At dinner with Washington in 1797, Jefferson informed Adams that he was not interested in joining his cabinet and the Republican Party did not intend to partake in the peace delegation Adams was sending to France. From then on Adams never again addressed Jefferson’s inclusion in policy making decisions.
In the 1800 election, the presidency was won by Jefferson with Aaron Burr as the vice-president. This was fundamentally the virtual end to the Federalist Party. After the election, Adams and Jefferson did not speak to one another for 12 long years.
Chapter Six: The Friendship
The book’s concluding chapter once again pertains to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. After 12 extensive years of silence between the two they finally began to reestablish their friendship through letter correspondence initiated by Adams that would last until their deaths. They both put forth a noticeable effort to reconcile and their long-held respect for each other overcame the bitterness from their past disputes. The letter correspondence consisted of 158 letters ending in 1826 when both men died. On the fiftieth anniversary of American independence in 1826, both Jefferson and Adams died respectively within approximately five hours of each other.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Questions From Chapter 5
1) Why were French settlements so dispersed throughout North America? (ie. Why were some settlements in the the Fertile Crescent area, while others were in other far away areas such as Detroit and Quebec?)
2) What exactly is a congressional? (I didn't really get it from the text)
3) What caused the huge population increase in New York City in the 1700s?
2) What exactly is a congressional? (I didn't really get it from the text)
3) What caused the huge population increase in New York City in the 1700s?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Bias Witihin the Chapter "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress"
Within the first chapter entitled, "Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress", from the book A People's History of the United States, the author Howard Zinn displays a bias more so in favor of the Indian tribes as opposed to the Europeans. The chapter describes the history of the discovery (at least in the sense of letting Europe know it existed since there were original inhabitants) and the soon following exploitation of the Americas by Christopher Columbus and his crew. Zinn pays very close attention to the treatment of the American Indians and the violence and cruelty brought upon them.
Christopher Columbus arrived upon the shores of the Bahama Island in October 1492 where he and his men were greeted by generous Arawak Indians showering them with gifts and hostility. Columbus was at first under the impression that he was in Asia (which was actually about 3/4 of the way farther east), from where he had promised the monarchs Spain that he would retrieve gold in return for the financing of his expedition. Being unfamiliar with these inhabitant of the island, he and his men soon exploited the Indians by taking over-advantage of their generosity, mistreating them, killing them, raiding their villages, and even enslaving them. He saw this as an opportunity to bring not only gold back to Spain but also slaves. This happened not just on the island that originally came upon but others in the Caribbean islands and against different tribes of Indians as well. This encounter between the two "worlds" of the time had a great negative effect on Indian civilizations.
Zinn makes it apparent how terribly the Indians were retreated, but he does not wish to sentimentalize their suffering. In the same way, he makes it clear how greedy and selfish the Europeans and their intentions were but does not desire to make them appear overly-atrocious. The bias that Zinn exemplifies in this chapter displays the struggles of the most negatively effected group, the Indians, while at the same time not forcing the reader to comfort to his bias, rather just informing the reader of the occuring and allowing him develop his own opinion without a sense of external influence.
Christopher Columbus arrived upon the shores of the Bahama Island in October 1492 where he and his men were greeted by generous Arawak Indians showering them with gifts and hostility. Columbus was at first under the impression that he was in Asia (which was actually about 3/4 of the way farther east), from where he had promised the monarchs Spain that he would retrieve gold in return for the financing of his expedition. Being unfamiliar with these inhabitant of the island, he and his men soon exploited the Indians by taking over-advantage of their generosity, mistreating them, killing them, raiding their villages, and even enslaving them. He saw this as an opportunity to bring not only gold back to Spain but also slaves. This happened not just on the island that originally came upon but others in the Caribbean islands and against different tribes of Indians as well. This encounter between the two "worlds" of the time had a great negative effect on Indian civilizations.
Zinn makes it apparent how terribly the Indians were retreated, but he does not wish to sentimentalize their suffering. In the same way, he makes it clear how greedy and selfish the Europeans and their intentions were but does not desire to make them appear overly-atrocious. The bias that Zinn exemplifies in this chapter displays the struggles of the most negatively effected group, the Indians, while at the same time not forcing the reader to comfort to his bias, rather just informing the reader of the occuring and allowing him develop his own opinion without a sense of external influence.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Is History True?
After reading the article "Is History True?," I find myself concurring more so with the point-of-view of William H. McNeill than that of Oscar Handlin. NcHeill believes historical truth is general and evolutionary and is distinguished by various groups at different times, and in different places in a subjective manner that has nothing to do with a scientifically absolute methodology. I agree with this because people may interpret history differently based on when they're analyzing it, where they are in the world, or just because of they way they think. For example, if looking back on an war, the modern form of one side may say that it was caused by the doings of the opposing nation, and vice versa. Since we weren't actually there, we could never for sure; we can only guess or form a theory. Even written evidence is not completely reliable because the person who had written it could be biased and wrote it to his liking. He may have left out parts he didn't think were substantial, exaggerated some areas, and other things along those lines.
Also, our view of history does change over time, or evolve. For example, we may find the usage of the guillotine in the past to be a barbaric practice, but back then it was considered a normal punishment, although highly cruel. As time progresses though, we do discover more about past events but many of theses discoveries cannot be deemed as entirely true.
In addition, Our technology for recording events, soon to be history, improves over time. As this improvement occurs, the factual accuracy increases as well. For example, with the invention of video cameras and video-recording cellular phones, people can record events visually if they happen to be in the right (or maybe wrong, depending on the event) at the right time.
Also, our view of history does change over time, or evolve. For example, we may find the usage of the guillotine in the past to be a barbaric practice, but back then it was considered a normal punishment, although highly cruel. As time progresses though, we do discover more about past events but many of theses discoveries cannot be deemed as entirely true.
In addition, Our technology for recording events, soon to be history, improves over time. As this improvement occurs, the factual accuracy increases as well. For example, with the invention of video cameras and video-recording cellular phones, people can record events visually if they happen to be in the right (or maybe wrong, depending on the event) at the right time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
