“Do you think I’m right?” - Module 7

“Do you think I’m right?”

To be honest, I’m not exactly sure how I am supposed to answer this question.  It appears to be a very subjective question. As I have learned through the feedback of my blogs, I must be careful about talking about my feelings toward history.

I think that the podcast summed-up clearly what we have learned during this course, so yes - I think that your were right.  What stuck out to me was the portion regarding the differences between how the Indians and African Americans were viewed by most of the Anglo population.  Jefferson stated that, “...Indians were salvageable...”  (podcast) The view was not that they lacked intelligence, just that they lacked the proper social skills or structured communities.  “Despite the Indians’ highly developed agriculture and well-established towns, Europeans frequently described them as nomads without settled communities.”  (Foner 12)  Further, “...Europeans considered Indians barbaric in part because they did not appear to live under established governments or fixed laws, and had no respect for authority.”  (Foner 13)  The notion was that Indians would, “...assimilate or die...” (podcast)

Although both the Indians and African Americans were both viewed as inferior, it was for different reasons.  In George Fitzhugh’s essay he claimed that, “...the Negro is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child...”  (Fitzhugh, para 1) It was believed that they were “...fixed in nature...” (podcast)  Meaning, that they would forever need to be governed and must remain slaves because they were never going to be able to care for themselves or their families.  

Both of those ideologies were extremely racist and unjust and have taken centuries, if at all in some communities, to overcome.  That kind of deep ceded hatred is passed down through generations and is still alive and thriving in the South.  I am a member of the Southern Poverty Law Center and keep up to date with the happenings of court cases that involve racist motivation.

Advocates for Slavery - Module 6

I had to read both essay's twice in order to get any kind of objectivity; because the first time I read them I was stunned and outraged by what my eyes were forced to transmit to my brain.  Please pardon my juvenile response, however, I found the arguments grotesque.  "...Negro is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child, not as a lunatic or criminal."  (Fitzhugh, para. 1)  The statement is so twisted, it's a backhanded justification.  The statement tries to encompass the fact that the master's were caring parental guardians, while inserting the demoralizing reference that African Americans excelled when compared to lunatics or criminals. 

 

Fitzhugh's essay attempted to invoke sympathy for the masters, for all of their sacrifices.  "The master labors for the slave, they exchange industrial value.  But the capitalist, living on his income, gives nothing to his subjects."   (Fitzhugh, para. 6)  I just can't make any sense out of that, I find myself frustrated even attempting.  The master's income came from the products produced on the plantation, planted, harvested and maintained by the slaves.  No slaves, no income!! I get the same feeling when listening to current Republicans defending their tax stances, it makes absolutely no sense to me. 

 

Hammond's essay attempted to wrap his ugly views in a softer light, "Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand.  A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes."  (Hammond, para. 1)  By making the South female, maybe conjuring up visions of one's grandmother or mother would make the sting of the hatred seem more pleasant.  His further use of God aims to have the same affect, "They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves."  (Hammond, para. 3)  God deemed them slaves, therefore, it is just.

 

I would like to say with conviction that their arguments would not resonate with today's society, however, I don't believe that to be true.  We are such a society of have's and have-nots.  The political divide is the primary example that comes to mind.  The Republicans and Democrats are so far apart in the fundamental core values on everything from social, economic and religious views.  It is my personal opinion that the anti-gay righs believers of today would hold the same opinions as Hammond and Fitzhugh.

American Revolution and Democracy - Module 5

The American Revolution (“Revolution”) was the beginning of political freedom in this country and was earned on the backs of the middle and lower classes.  The Revolution spurred public debates on political and social struggles as it related to all classes and, “...enlarged the scope of freedom and challenged inherited structures of power within American.”  (Foner 203).  It opened up the playing field for citizens to vote for their public officials and hence get their needs addressed.



Before the Revolution, democracy meant a forceful government coercing the minorities to submit,”... yet Americans hated centralized power so vehemently they were warring against it. They considered their liberties "not merely as arbitrary grants, but as their unalienable, eternal rights, purchased by the blood and treasure of their ancestors." (Akers, para. 10)



Although the Revolution liberated only white men of all classes by allowing them to participate in the political arena, it was the first stepping stone to what would eventually lead to women and other minorities political freedom.  It cemented American independence from British rule and was the platform for which the underprivileged could reach never before political heights.


Works Cited
Akers, B.. "The Revolution's Reactionary Radicals. " The New American  21 Mar. 2011: Research Library, ProQuest. Web.  10 Jul. 2011.

Foner, E. "Give Me Liberty!  An American History." W.W. Norton & Company. New York:  2009.  Print

War for Profit - Module 4

War for Profit - Module 4

In chapter 5, A Kind of Revolution, of Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States Volume I:  American Beginnings to Reconstruction, he clearly demonstrates the class structure of not only the Revolutionary leadership but of colonial militia as well.  “The Continental Congress, which governed the colonies through the war, was dominated by rich men...”  (Zinn 63).  

The Revolutionary leadership had difficulty in mobilizing the lower classes because they lacked enthusiasm, they resorted to “...offering the adventure and rewards of military service to get poor people to fight for a cause they may not see clearly as their own.”  (Zinn 61)  When they finally did succeed in enlisting individuals from the lower class, such Revolutionary fighters were given lower ranks and were not paid.  

War was profitable during the Revolution; wherein the Revolutionary leaders enriched themselves and their wealthy friends with land confiscated from those who fled and the Native Americans.  War is still profitable with politicians and their special interests groups today.  A glaring example would be Halliburton Corporation, a war contractor for the Iraqi war who former Vice-President Dick Cheney was CEO.  “After Cheney became vice-president, Halliburton benefited from its former association with the vice-president. It received more than $18.5 billion, including a famous no-bid $7 billion contract for oil infrastructure work in Iraq...Contrary to Cheney's claims that he has no financial associations with Halliburton, financial disclosures reportedly showed that Cheney had continued to receive a deferred salary from Halliburton up to 2004.”   (Gulf News, para 9)

War profiteers remain the same now as they did back during the Revolutionary war. High powered politicians using their positions to make their personal wealth, and that of their friends, flourish from the sacrifices of the less fortunate.

Works Cited
Zinn, Howard.  “A People’s History of the United States Volume I:  American Beginnings to Reconstruction.”  The New Press.  New York: 2003

“Profiting form the Iraq War.”  Gulf News. 14 July 2008, ABI/INFORM.  Trade & Industry.  ProQuest. Web. 5 Jul. 2011

 

Taxes and Slavery – Module 3

Taxes and Slavery – Module 3

Robin Einhorn’s essay, Tax Aversion and the Legacy of Slavery, clearly states what I believe to be true in terms of American taxes. “Middle-income people who pay big chunks of their earnings in payroll and sales taxes will support tax cuts for millionaires (estate tax abolition, low capital gains rates), which not only threaten the funding for the services on which they depend – but may even increase their taxes!” (Einhorn para. 1) The aforementioned is a fundamental belief of conservative Americans that absolutely puzzles me. Tax cuts for the millionaire’s mean less money going towards the services that the federal government provide to middle and low income American families. “They have more to do with protections for entrenched wealth than with promises of opportunity, and more to do with the demands of privileged elites than with the strivings of the common man.” (Einhorn para. 5)

The same could be said for Southerners who wanted to keep slavery for as long as possible, it had everything to do with money/taxes and politics and nothing to do with social services or being fair and just. “Slavery was a major institution in the American economy, slaveholders were major players in American politics, and major political decisions, such as tax decision always had to take these facts into account.” (Einhorn para. 6) The North and South were always at odds on how to distribute the state taxes.

The South benefitted greatly when the three-fifths clause was enacted:

"…under the three-fifths clause of the Constitution, each slave – who had no legal rights as a person – counted as three-fifths of a free person when determining the basis for congressional representation and direct taxation. As a result, the South gained an advantage in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.” (Gisolfi para. 2)

Further, “Under Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the original U.S. Constitution prohibited Congress from ending the slave trade before 1808. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for each person.” (Gisolfi para. 16)

I think that there is a widespread misconception that slavery remained so long in this country for merely plantation help and free hard-labor. Money and politics equal power and slavery was a huge part of both.

Works Cited

Einhorn, Robin. “Tax Aversion and the Legacy of Slavery”. Web. 2011 June 22

Gisolfi, Monica. “Slavery and the U.S. Constitution.” Columbia University. Web. 2011 June 24

Zinn Conflicted - Module 2

Zinn Conflicted

　

I am very conflicted with Zinn’s statement of how historians should, “…emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of that past…” (Zinn 12). I feel that that could be very subjective. In history, and as with any well crafted argument, if the author speculates with enough conviction, they can sway the reader to believe what they are saying to be factual. Swaying or entertaining the reader does not make the material historically factual.

I also disagree with his observation that reciting factual events, “…make(s) historians collaborators in the endless cycle of defeat.” (Zinn 11). To me, that sounds so depressing. I would hate to read a history book that regurgitated an endless cycle of defeat. I think that one can write a creative historical text by using descriptive words instead of speculative narration.

With that being said, I feel that Foner’s description of The Pueblo Revolt was creatively crafted to both tell the story and engage emotion. He built-up the tempo with statements such as, “Franciscan friars worked relentlessly to convert Indians to Catholicism, often using intimidation and violence.” (Foner 31) That raised the stakes and elevated the story to the to the explosive conflict. He then concluded with relaying that, “They rebuilt their places of worship, called “kivas”, and resumed sacred dances the friars had banned. ‘The God of the Spaniards’ they should ‘is dead’”. Within six short paragraphs he was able to take the reader through that historical event, invoke compassion and understanding as well as providing knowledge.

Works Cited

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States Volume I: American Beginnings to         Reconstruction. New York: The New Press, 2003. Print

Foner, Eric. Give me Liberty! An American History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2009. Print
　

Tayshia's .02$

Hi!  My name is Tayshia and I am taking this history class because (1) I love history; and (2) I am 6 units away from completing my undergrad in Public Administration from the University of San Francisco and this class will satisfy 3 of those units.  I look forward to reading the required book by Howard Zinn, I have been an admirer of his work for a long time.  He puts an interesting spin on things that I can relate to.  Also, my knowledge on US history before the Civil War is limited so I am anxious to learn about the settlors. 

Good luck fellow classmates, this class will go by really quickly!