Last week, we read the first three chapters of Richmond’s Unhealed History, which focused on the interactions between early settlers at Jamestown and Henrico and the Indians of the Powhatan Confederacy whom the English gradually drove out of their places of habitation. As I read, I was struck by two things:
1) The ubiquity of violence on a level that Americans (Native and otherwise) today would consider shocking, both between and within the two groups. Colonists killed and ate each other when starving and colonial authorities regularly beat rule-breakers within an inch of their lives. The Powhatan Confederacy was united by Wahunsenacawh (“Chief Powhatan”) partially through violent coercion and was at war with its Monacan neighbors. And of course both groups regularly slaughtered members of the other group. It may be tempting to say that these were not ordinary circumstances for either culture, as the Indians were under threat from colonial encroachment and the English were under threat from starvation and disease, and this is true enough—all cultures become stricter, harsher, and more violent or “closed” when they are under threat, and more permissive and gentle or “open” during periods of safety and prosperity. But it is not enough to say this, I think. It does not account for the utter casualness with which colonists recount the slaying of Native captives. In fact I have had this same experience with almost every culture or historical period I have studied—it appears to me that the norm throughout human history has been for people to hurt or kill each other much more frequently and casually than in our own society. I do not think my own upper-class American culture is less physically violent because we are somehow more moral or empathetic than other peoples, but rather simply because we have succeeded so completely in violently subjugating the rest of the planet that we rarely come into conflict within our own communities over resources—we first-worlders “export” our violence, if you will, to the third-world countries that grow our food and make our goods. So my question for you all is: how do we teach our children about violence in history? How do we explain to them that historic people were so much more violent without making them seem like heartless monsters? Or do we explain it to them? When are students ready to learn about the differences in values surrounding violence in other times and places?
2) The constant miscommunication between colonists and Natives. Really, reading these chapters I got the impression that maybe there was never a single significant conversation between an English and an Indian in which they really understood each other. The English came to the New World with a whole host of unquestioned assumptions about the way humans live our lives and relate to the land and the gods and each other. To their minds, all peoples either were Christian or had failed to be Christian, and in the latter case might either be naturally drawn to the universal truth of the Gospels or be unwilling to learn it; but to the Natives, of course, the religious practices of the English were just the barely-understood customs of a foreign tribe, with no relevance to the land, men or gods of Tsenacommoco, and Pocahontas’ own “conversion” was likely, from her perspective, merely the adding of her English husband’s god to her pantheon (Native spiritual practices having no provision for the ideas of “true” vs. “false” religion or monotheism). Concomitantly they judged individual Natives’ morality based on their adherence to English Christian customs that the Natives neither understood nor had any reason to revere: thus Pocahontas was esteemed the “nonpareil” of the Indians because, as a teenage girl with a pliable mind and heart and what seems to have been an anthropological curiosity about the English, she adapted easily to European society and dressed and acted as they thought she ought, while her brother-in-law Tomocomo was scorned as a subhuman “savage” because, as a man who was not brought up among the foreigners, he wore what would have been considered appropriate nobleman’s garb among his own people even when visiting London. And of course the English famously “bought” land from Natives who had no concept of private property rights by inducing them to sign contracts they didn’t understand. Finally, and relevantly to the point I made under (1) about violence, the English just assumed that Indians attacked colonists out of the reasonless perversity of naturally wicked “savages”, but that English attacks on Indians had specific motives that justified them. So my question for you all is: where, maybe, in your own thinking, might you be unknowingly limited by your own culture’s assumptions in judging the behavior of people from other cultures? How can one detect and avoid these sorts of biases? Or is it hopeless? Keep in mind that if an example of ethnocentrism in modern American culture comes to your mind quickly and easily, it probably isn’t the best example, because the fact that you thought of it so easily indicates that you and likely many others have already questioned it. Try to think of a bias that you have a harder time overcoming!
Hi William!
Your view on the first three chapters was very similar to mine. I was shocked to see the amount of violence that truly happened. Growing up in Virginia, we learned about the area’s settlements and were taught that violence occurred but never to the extent that we see here. We were taught that the Englishmen killed the natives because they saw them as “savages” and that the Tribes in the area fought back to save themselves and push away the Englishmen. The occasional conversation was said to happen but never anything concrete or substantial.
I think that it is important for students to know the history of their home state/town. The issue is how to approach talking about violence with children. For the most part, I believe going into details could be very overwhelming for an elementary student. I think basing the conversation around change could be a useful way to help students understand the extent of what happened but not dive into deep details on the subject. For instance, 4th-grade students learn a lot about Jamestown and settlements in Social Studies. This is an age where you can inform them that a lot of individuals (both natives and Englishmen) died during this time period. Then you can explain that greed and miscommunication played a huge role in the events that occurred. Many Englishmen killed Native Americans because they wanted to live on the land they did or because they were different in many ways from the Englishmen. I think it is also important to discuss that what happened is not okay and it should not have happened in such a forceful and harmful manner. I think it is critical that students learn a comprehensive social studies curriculum, but the deep details should happen at an older level.
When discussing biases in the classroom, I think discussing violence there is always a bias. Violence most of the time is seen as a terrifying act done with malicious intent. In some cases, violence occurs because of a need for protection from other violence. My personal bias stands where I draw the line at malicious intent is probably different from others which is something I would have to watch when teaching the facts of a history lesson.
Overall, I think violence is a very important but touchy subject when talking to children. Students tend to recognize that violence is not right and that what happened was tragic. Students will have questions and I think as long as the classroom is a safe and respectful place, these conversations can happen effectively and calmly even on sensitive topics.
You did a great job with this post William! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings.
Reading the chapters for our class, I found that I wasn’t exactly surprised by the violence of colonization. I have learned a lot about imperialism and colonization, especially what happened during the colonization of the Americas. Your opinion on historical shifts in violence fascinated me. I do believe that we still adopt very violent philosophies as a country, but they are simply put in the hands of the policing and military systems that we put into place. Our violence was seen in Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and even in the streets of Chicago. We push the violence to those who can’t afford to escape it, and we are currently struggling to establish policies that will combat this violence. I feel as though our children should learn about the actions of our country in the classroom. Not only will it allow for critical thinking skills and a lower risk of repeating the past, but it will also help prepare our students for becoming policymakers and policy changes. They could become advocates, lawyers, and teachers. The roles they’ll be in later in life will start from their experience in school. I believe that they should start learning about this history (and the violence included in it) in late elementary and middle school. They already have to confront the realities of violence in their everyday lives. My mother had to deal with white children chasing and yelling at her bus full of Black children when she was young. My dad had to deal with segregation and Jim Crow laws as a pre-teen. Learning how to deal with acts of violence in the classroom can help children process the acts of others in their lives.
For your second question, I do believe that we can be limited by our cultural assumptions. There are some actions, however, that should be denounced by everyone. I’m sure you can think of some, but slavery, the Holocaust, and mass genocide are a few examples. In the classroom, teaching facts about different cultures, including their religions, food, and clothing, might be a great way to go. Presenting how other cultures express their uniqueness and possible reasonings behind their actions can help lead students to discuss and debate why history happened as it did. I also believe that biases are inevitable, but how we respond to them is most important. If you have hurt someone with what you said, you should acknowledge the impact of your statement and examine what you can do better. Real statements have real consequences. I don’t believe, however, that working past bias is hopeless. It only takes a little more energy to acknowledge bias and give our students the tools to acknowledge their own bias.
Through reading the chapters, I found that I examined how I look at colonizatio and added to the knowledge I already knew. Responding to your questions allowed me to analyze my opinion more closely. Thank you for your response!
Hi William!
Thank you for your thoughtful response!
I agree that these chapters contained a lot of violence that I myself was not even aware of. I feel as though this shows how my own education within the public school system of New York really did not focus on other states besides our own.
In my opinion, I do not believe that it would be beneficial to go in-depth with young, elementary students, about the violence that endured in this part of history. They are too young, and I believe it would scare them. Within the textbook, it talks about massacres, people being hanged, murdered, eaten, and other ruthless things. With such gory details, I would go as far as to not get in-depth about them until high school or after 6th grade in middle school, once students by then have been exposed to these horrific things that have happened. One way to still be able to teach this history to young students would be to replace the violence with a simple statement talking about fighting and harm, as young students will understand what it means to cause harm to one another, but don’t need to know exactly how that was done. To older elementary students, it would be okay to bring in the idea that the Englishmen were killing the Native Americans, like Emma states above, but of course, emphasize that this was not okay. It is always important to emphasize that the killing and harm that occurred in order to get these pieces of land was not the best way to go about it, but is what they did at the time, however, it was not okay to kill and harm so many people. When students learn about other parts of history, they will still be exposed to the war and fighting that occurred.
I remember when I learned about wars and all the fighting that occurred in America at a young age and it scared me. I did not want that to happen while I was alive, and even hearing about fighting and war in other parts of the world made me afraid. Talking about killing can be a very sensitive and scary topic for students of all ages, so it is important to make sure that you take time for students to process, state what is on their own minds, and be there for them.
Discussing violence within the classroom is a tough subject, but yet an important one. We cannot omit parts of history because they were bloody or horrific. As we say, it is important to learn about history so it does not repeat itself. So by teaching it in appropriate ways, we will be able to do this for students. A large part is just supporting and having a caring, safe classroom environment so students are not afraid to express their thoughts or concerns after learning about this violent history.
Hi William, I appreciated your thoughts on the reading, you were very thorough in your post. When I read this, I didn’t notice miscommunications in the interactions between the American natives and the colonists, can you share a couple of examples? They did have different languages, which they used Pocahontas to help with interpretation, but I think the English decided they wanted the land and took it from the American natives through whatever means. For me, after reading chapters 1-3 of Richmond’s Unhealed History (Campbell, 2018), I had a few thoughts. First, the history I was taught as part of the Virginia social studies curriculum in elementary school was very sterilized, biased and put the English settlers in the best possible light when telling how they conquered the Virginia area from the American native peoples. Second, this was the first time I heard of the Doctrine of Discovery which was essentially an English manifesto on why everyone should support them killing the American native peoples and taking all of their land by force according to the elements of practice as listed on pages five and six. Third, I truly appreciated the expanded knowledge given on Pocahontas in chapter three, it was not just the version England and the settlers wanted everyone to have. On page 56, the third paragraph states, “she was tricked and captured by persons she trusted….as a young woman, she was placed in the position of dealing almost singlehandedly, at times, with the catastrophic engagement between her family and culture and a strange and powerful invading nation.” It seemed very contradictory to use Christian religion to justify the many atrocities that the English settlers performed in the name of converting the “savages” to Christianity. I definitely understand why Richmond is still unhealed because the true history of the city has still not been acknowledged, so we are still dealing with many undercurrents of the unresolved injustices that our city was built on.
In response to your question on how to teach children this history of extensive violence that Virginia was built on, I would agree the age of the child should dictate how detailed we are, but I think it is extremely important that the correct history is taught. I would contend that we are currently in a very violent period of time at present in America with so many school shootings, domestic killings and other violent encounters we are bombarded with daily on the news. Also, through social media and online gaming, there are various ways our children are being exposed to violence all the time. I remember having to read Lord of the Flies by William Golding in middle school, there was some scenes that would be considered very violent but it was part of our curriculum so even though it may be difficult to teach, I think students would be ready to start hearing all the fact of Virginia’s history starting in fifth grade.
For the second question, I want to share a paragraph from page 22 – “ The relationship between the Algonquian and the English was extremely dangerous to the original inhabitants of the land, just as it was for the English invaders/colonists. Colonists who strayed from the forts were constantly at risk of capture or attack. But so were native people. The English regularly threatened Indian villages, stole grain at gunpoint, and kidnapped Indian children to be their servants. With no English women in the colony for the first two years, and very few until 1619, Indian women were at constant risk of rape.” When I look at this, my thoughts are none of this had to happen if England (France and Spain too) respected the fact that the American native people already had claim to the land and it was not theirs to take. Then to use Christianity and the Doctrine of Discovery to legitimize their actions was pure evil. Admittedly, I feel more empathetic to the American natives because the English just saw them as “savages” or not worthy of being treated with dignity and respect. I always know the first thing most persons will notice about me is my skin color and immediately judge my worth without knowing anything else about me, so when I see this happening to others, it really makes me sad. I wish it was different because we are all human and I really believe we have a lot more in common than we think if we just took some time to get to know one another.
Hi William, this is a wonderful post, and your comments and questions are really well thought out!
After reading these chapters and reading your post, I don’t necessarily think we have to teach students that Colonists and Native Americans were more violent by nature, but rather by choice and lack of understanding. By this, I will reference your second point that you made and highlight the miscommunication these groups, and many other cultures, experience when they have outsiders come into their community. I think that, as teachers, we need to highlight that these groups usually automatically resorted to violence to get what they wanted instead of taking time to learn about the cultures and the idologies of the “enemy”. People today are become more open to other cultural norms and have come to respect the cultures of those who are not like us as opposed to the people from the 16th and 17th centuries, and I think that that is an important note to make to our students. Instead of stating that these people were just violent people, we should help students to realize that society back then was less accepting of “different”, and this is what sparked all the violence and the fights.
Lexie, I appreciate your comment about “helping students to realize that society “back then” was less accepting of “different,” and this is what sparked all of the violence and fights.” This is called “context.” When teaching history, context ALWAYS MATTERS. Bringing attention to the context of a time period and empowering students to recognize how and why behaviors change over time is very important.
Hello William!
The point of view you shared after having read the first three chapters of Richmond’s Unhealed History, was very insightful. I agree that the book talks about many instances of extreme violence taking place between the English and the American natives. Violence which ensued due to the English settlers taking native lands by any means. I believe teaching children about violence in America’s past is very important to ensure that the acts of violence from our past do not repeat in the contemporary. I do believe that maybe the most detailed and gory parts of our history can be in a way cleaned up for our youngest learners but by later elementary and middle school I think that students should be receiving the true nature of the many types of violence America has committed in its history. I believe it is important to place historical events into the context of the past, but I do believe it is important for students to understand the America in the contemporary is not any less violent, but we have been comprehensively shielded from the violence due to our distant proximity to which the violence occurs.
In response to the second question, I do believe that we humans can be limited by the cultural assumptions in which we hold. This was demonstrated most notably in my opinion in Richmond’s Unhealed History, where the Doctrine of Discovery was explained as being the pretense that English settlers regarded the American Natives as essentially sub-human justifying the killing of Natives and the stealing of their land. This cultural assumption resulted in the mass genocide of countless Native Americans. It is imperative to teach students about these biases because cross cultural interactions in our students’ lives are unavoidable. Ways to combat these modes of thinking in our students could be to teach them the customs of other cultures. Things such as holidays, the ways in which different cultures observe their religions, and the different types of clothing other cultures wear. By being exposed to and learning about other cultures students will see different cultures not as being alien and but as being different and great in their own ways.
Dante, your point about educating students in the ways in which different cultures observe their religions, dress, etc., is critical and directly correlates to the Standards of Learning that are mandated for teachers to deliver to students in the state of Virginia. The cycle for change is now. I encourage you and everyone in our class to review the current superintendent’s version to be presented to the Virginia Board of Education on Feb. 2, 2023. Choose one grade level/course and ask yourself: What do I notice? If what you notice is not something you agree with, you have an opportunity to voice your thoughts in an email to the Virginia Board of Education.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE ACCEPTED: To contact a member of the Virginia Board of Education, email BOE@doe.virginia.gov or directly to the VDOE History and Social Science mailbox at vdoe.hss@doe.virginia.gov.
For a quick glance at a few of the concerns about the superintendent’s draft version go to this press release and read further:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WQRDwdTHmrtsOIozd_agU5Arq0Cn7aHS/view
Your voices matter.
Hi William!
This is a great post! It is very apparent how much thought and effort you put into your reading of “Richmond’s Unhealed History” and I appreciate how thorough your post is.
I too found it surprising how violent and gruesome the first few chapters of the reading were. I had not been aware of this information prior to having this book and I found it difficult to read at some points. As Halle mentioned earlier in her response, I also believe that my lack of my knowledge on this topic is due to the curriculum of the New York Public Schools I attended. Although we did discuss the conflicts between Native Americans and English settlers — we never went into much depth on how truly horrendous some actions were and hardly discussed events that happened outside of our state borders. Reflecting back on this now makes me think, why didn’t my schools feel the need to explain this important aspect of history to us? Additionally though, this also prompted me to ponder the question, what is the best way to explain this type of violence to young students? Especially those at the elementary level. I feel that as a future teacher it is best to not completely overwhelm students, but it is still essential to make sure they are aware of the truth. You cannot just leave out specific elements of history. At the younger levels, I think the best strategy would be to not go too in depth about violent actions. Waiting until students have reached high school levels of history would allow for students to be better emotionally prepared for these challenging discussions. When they are older, students will also have already obtained the skills necessary to form their opinions on difficult topics and be capable of sharing them.
In regards to your second point surrounding miscommunication, I find that to be extremely eye-opening. I remember around the time I began middle school, I finally realized that other countries or even other states were either not learning the same historical topics as us or they were learning it in class — but from a very different perspective. For example, when discussing events such as the Cold War, I’m sure the discussions in Russian classrooms sound different from those in American classroom. I feel as though that no matter where you are, they is always going to be some form of bias clouding certain aspects of the historical events.
Hi William!
Thank you for your post. You did an amazing job at being detailed in your comments and questions regarding the readings.
It was a little shocking to read about how gruesome the violence in our history was. Throughout my childhood education, I feel as if I certainly did not learn in-depth about the violence of our history. I’m not sure if that was just New York Public Schools eduction policy or if that was every school’s procedures. Our nation’s history is one of the most important topics students should be educated upon. My beliefs on whether or not students should learn about the violence of our history depends on children’s age. As for elementary and middle school students, grades kindergarten through eighth, I believe teachers should conceal the extremely violent details and stick to the historical facts in the classroom. The textbook chapters that we read discussed people being murdered and explicit details about how miserable slaves were. That doesn’t mean teachers shouldn’t explain to students that there was a great deal of violence, but explaining the violent details could overwhelm students and they may be uncomfortable in these situations. Students these ages are too young to learn about this violence and it would be unclear whether or not parents approve of these details being taught to their children. I also believe that if children wish to further their knowledge on these details, they can do research in their free time at home or with their families. However, I strongly believe high school students should be exposed to the violent details of our history because they’re older and more mature than elementary and middle school students. At the same time, teachers should be conscious of student’s feelings by warning them of the tough conversions they are about to have. This gives students the time to prepare for uncomfortable conversations.
As for your second question, I believe it’s very common for people to hold biases regarding our history. It’s important for teachers to be unbiased while they teach students about our nation’s historical events and explicitly state facts instead of sharing their own opinion. This gives students the chance to form their own beliefs after learning exactly what happened during our history. I’m sure I hold cultural biases based on what I learned during my childhood education. I agree with Mimi that for example, the way in which I learned about the details of the world wars vastly differ from how students in other countries learned about it.
Hello William! Thank you for the thoughtful reflections on our reading. Through your discussion, I was able to think more critically about the text and its application to the classroom.
To address your first question, I believe that we should first start with a basic understanding of the events that took place in these settlements and as the students get older, we present them with the specifics of the events. I do not think teaching the gruesome details of Jamestown in 3rd grade is at all appropriate, but I do think that they should know that the original settlers are not part of this picture-perfect Thanksgiving feast. We can explain that both groups had separate cultures and practices and the conflict of those led to the terrible events that we read about. I think it is important when teaching this topic to explain the context of the events and where both sides were coming from without excusing or validating the violence that occurred.
I agree with Dante’s comment about informing students to about contemporary violence in America. Before my junior year of high school, I was not very aware of the contemporary forms of violence that America displays because of my privilege as a middle/upper-class white person. I wish I had learned about modern inequalities and how to think critically when presented with different forms of media sooner than I did.
To address the second question, I think a great way to expose students to different cultures is to have a population you choose to focus on every month or so that is related to the course content. I believe that the judgment of other cultures comes from learned ignorance in addition to the fear of something different from what we know. We are only comfortable with what we are exposed to, so by teaching different cultures I believe our students can limit their judgment and biases. I agree with Ashley when she stated that bias is inevitable, but it is how we respond that is important. In older students, you can try and have a conversation about implicit bias, what it is, and how to address it, but for younger students, you can talk about the difference between thoughts and actions. Also, being aware of your own biases and how they influence the classroom is critical. You want your students to learn how to think critically, not teach them what to think. They should be able to question the world, not just accept it for what it is.
William,
Thank you for your in-depth analysis and thought-provoking questions about issues central to the first three chapters of Richmond’s Unhealed History. Like many of your classmates in the NY cohort, I was not exposed to these ideas in my K-12 education. Our historical focus tended to be Plymouth and not Jamestown, so it took moving to VA before I really learned about this history. I also know that nationwide, we do a less than satisfactory job addressing the history of the first peoples and rarely tell the true story of colonization and its impact on them. The marginalia in my book read:
“this is an atrocity”
“terrible”
“that the church encouraged this is unfathomable”
“this is painful to read”
“hubris!”
“such ugly details”
“awful”
There are more words like this, and that’s just in the first 45 pages. I have a hard time reading such accounts, though I know it is important to do so. Over and I over, I asked myself and eventually wrote, “how much is human life worth?” It seems as though the English thought little of the value of the lives of others. This only gets worse in the chapters that follow.
All this doesn’t answer your question about how we teach these ideas to children, but I suppose it sets the framework from which I answer. I do think the impact of colonization must be addressed, though the language can be softened and details omitted. While I appreciate the use of primary sources, the gruesome accounts should not be shared at this age. As to how we view this violence of the past, I’m not sure I believe they were more violent than we are today, I think it simply takes a different form. I’m sure that 300 years from now, people will look back on us and wonder how we could have allowed events to occur as they have, and they will consider us to be violent.
As to your bias question, I’ll reserve comment for a bit as we will talk about how historians attempt to avoid bias in their work.
Thanks again for pushing us to think about these issues.
Read this after I commented. It seems relevant here.
https://lithub.com/paul-auster-why-is-america-the-most-violent-country-in-the-western-world/
Hi William,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post as I shared similar feelings while I was reading the first three chapters and felt as though you had many thought-provoking questions/scenarios that I hadn’t thought about before. Regarding your first question, I have thought a lot about what, when, and how we should teach students about very violent pasts. History is a subject that contains a lot of cruelty, particularly U.S. history. In my opinion, avoiding the brutal parts of history means not telling the entire story. At the same time, I do not believe that young children should learn about the detailed extent of various atrocities. I grew up in Northern Virginia, and I found that a lot of the history that I learned in my first couple of years of elementary school were dressed up stories made to conceal the violence that occurred in the past. As I grew up, I had to unlearn a lot of the things I was taught early on. To me, this is a rather backwards way of educating students. A potential solution to this problem is focusing on the language in which we educate our younger students. I believe that there are ways to capture the bigger picture while also sparing students the gory details and providing them with a foundation that can be built upon as they advance throughout school.
As for your second point, I believe that biases are inescapable and that we should do our best to identify them to limit our ignorance and other damaging behaviors as much as possible. The more we practice unlearning our biases as teachers, the better equipped we will be to help our students do the same. As Americans, I feel that we tend to be unaware of how much bias goes into the way we teach/were taught U.S. history (the same could be said for any country, however there’s a power dynamic at play in my opinion). Addressing biases such as those might take more than just acknowledgement, however, we must be willing to put in the necessary work.
Kudos, William, for a job well done! I really appreciate how thorough you were and the depth of the questions you posed. I’ve re-read your post several times over the past couple of days and spent a lot of time thinking about your observations and prompts.
I actually was not surprised at the pervasiveness of violence I read about in Richmond’s Unhealed History. It is, of course, disgusting to read about scalping, cannibalism, and all the ways in which one can be murdered, but it was refreshing in a way to read a non-sugar-coated, unsanitized version of these events that were fundamental in shaping our city and nation. I grew up in Richmond, and we did learn about many of these key figures and events, but clearly not to this level of specificity. In general, I don’t think we are doing children a favor by hiding or sanitizing the truth about past violence, but I do think we as educators must let the truth unfold in layers, gauging the appropriateness of the subject matter and level of detail with the age and maturity/grade level of our students. Upper elementary (fifth grade) feels right to begin to let go of some of the shielding and sanitizing of violent events in their historical context. However, I do wonder how we reconcile explaining violence in history (or not) with how we must prepare students for the possibility of violence today (run/hide/fight, shelter in place, school shootings, etc.). I’m still thinking about this. It’s one of the things I want to make sure I learn in our class — how to teach the truth about things that are scary without scaring students.
As for your second section, William, I didn’t leave the readings with the same general impressions as you. Instead of feeling like there were misunderstandings and miscommunication, I felt like all actions were laced with intentional deception, like there was never an intention on either the side of the colonists/the English or the Native Indians to truly understand or tolerate “the other.” (Except for Pocahontas. I’m conflicted about her intentions and actions.) I do believe that we all have biases about whoever we consider “the other” and that it’s important to know thyself by identifying and acknowledging one’s own biases. The best ways I’ve found to grow through bias are to travel (study abroad if you can), meet new people who are different from you, and dedicate time for self-reflection. In my human resources career, I’ve discovered that many disputes between employees or between employees and their employers arise from a lack of understanding or even ignorance of another’s cultural and/or religious beliefs that may be driving a particular behavior. This seems applicable to many conflicts in history as well.
Thank you, William, for taking the time to ask such thought-provoking questions this week! You’ve set the bar high for me as next week’s blog poster.
Hello William,
As I read chapters 1-3, and William’s post, William you identified clearly how the native and other Americans beat, killed, and even ate each other when starving. This caused me to stop and think about how far or not so far we have traveled over time to reach this point in our society. Except for the eating one another, we still beat and kill our neighbor, community members, and even strangers within inches of their lives and all for a great cause. Sadly no one really understand those great causes, and I am not sure the perpetrators has an understanding of the cause while committing these violent crimes.
I agree with you William that the violence appeared to be happening at a shocking level with the natives and others as well. After reading chapters 1-3, and taking a break to review that information and then comparing our reading time frame to what is going on around the world, events are very similar to each other. Russia and Ukraine are in a battle that has been going on for years, as well as other countries fighting for their own great cause. History appears to be only repeating itself.
Your question on how we should teach our children about violence in history, can be answered in a number of ways. First, we should be knowledgeable on the subject prior to teaching our children, learning about our hometown and state is important. Second, I would not attempt to change history by watering down what has taken place in history, but by allowing our children to see firsthand what history has to offer concerning events that has occurred, by providing facts, both good and not so good information. Third, as teachers, parents, and community members, we should be honest about the history, and not only tell one side of history. War, violence, disagreements are not a pleasant events to study or teach, but an important subjects all the same.
The English tradition consistently believed that the native people were murderous and undependable, but for their first two years in Jamestown the English relied on the natives for food. The natives told a similar story that the English came to town and put guns to their chief’s head and took their grain. I read things like that and chop it up to stories of war and believe that some people will never see other for their true value. It is difficult to read about others or history when people are judged by something other than what they are truly about, and not being judge by the content of their content but by the color of their skin. Many people are not treated with dignity and respect, but treated as an object that can fulfill a need at hand.
Growing up in Bedford County, we did not study a lot of Richmond, VA, history or the events that took place in this area. Our limited studying of this areas started at a later date or only studying Columbus. I find this book to be extremely informative at the same time a difficult read to stay focused on the words on the pages. It is difficult not to find myself thinking about the situation and getting upset with what the author is portraying to the reader. Our history should be taught as it occurred and not as the teachers feel is best for the students to receive. Our history has not been filled with warm happy endings and the story should be told for everyone to get the correct understanding as to what took place.
William, you did a great job with the first post for this class. Thank you for sharing your well prepared thoughts for our class.
Hi William! Your blog post was great! Thank you so much for posing these questions, and for further explaining the parts of the reading we had for class on Tuesday.
After reading the first three chapters, I also had similar views to your own. I grew up in New York, and was fairly unaware of the horrific violence that was touched upon in the chapters. Based on what we discussed in class and previous themes of violence from all points in history, I assumed that the chapters would include gruesome information about Virginia’s history. However, the extent to how terrible the violence was took me by surprise. In my previous learning, I was not taught about all of the violence that occurred during the colonization of America. This shocked me because I believe it is crucial to teach history in a way that does not make students think they are being lied to, or that history is being covered up. The violence that was talked about throughout the first three chapters should be talked about so our society can learn from the past and work to make the present/future better. The problem with this occurs when deciding what exactly to tell students based on their ages. The details of violence, such as cannibalism, scalping, and brutal murder, are very difficult to inform young children about when teaching history. I don’t think educators should hide the truth about past violence from students at all, but I do think educators need to be careful about telling too many gruesome details to lower maturity levels. It is crucial that teachers should gauge if the details of historical topics are appropriate for their age/grade level. Telling students too many harsh details may scare them when they are at a young age, so I believe that students can start learning about the more scarring details of history and even the current world in fourth or fifth grade. This does not mean teachers should be explaining violence that has occurred with in depth details, rather teachers should start showing students with evidence that tragic events have happened in the past. The world is unpredictable and scary not only in the past, but also within the present. That is why I believe it is important to inform students of these events, so that students are well prepared if anything like the past happens in the world today. I do wonder about if parents should introduce these more difficult historic events to their students before teachers supply their students with the facts and details of the events. Would this allow for students to develop more emotional maturity and be more prepared to learn about history in class.
As for your second question, I believe I hold bias based on what I have been taught throughout my education based on where I lived growing up. Like I mentioned before, the New York curriculum did not match up with what was taught in Virginia, in addition to many other states. This allows for bias to occur based on how I am unaware of many events that have taken place in history. Even though many people hold biases concerning historical events, my goal is to eliminate my own biases so that my students can receive an education that is formed on facts rather than my opinions. I plan on giving my students the evidence and detailed facts when teaching history to ensure my students are not given an opinionated education that prevents them from knowing all of the truth from the past.
Great job with this post!! You started the blogs on a very high note!!