Month: September 2020

After viewing the Leader Portraits I am reminded of the values that leaders want to portray. Art is a way to show things without using words. When studying history, photographs and paintings are brought up to show things symbolically. For example, in at least one of all of the leader’s portraits we looked at, they are either wearing red or there is some kind of red in the background. Red is known to be a color of power and royalty. Obviously in the painting or photograph the person cannot say “I am royalty and I am powerful”, but the colors (and other things can). I find the study of art history very interesting (especially when looking at paintings) because something one of my past history teachers told me is that every single thing in a painting is there for a reason. Whether it be who is in the painting, what colors are used, what the weather is like, and so on, all of it plays a key role in what the image is trying to depict and what message it is trying to tell. You are able to tell a lot about a person and what they want to portray about themselves in art. 

 

Something I also found interesting was that up until recently, in their portraits, leaders did not smile and if they did it was very subtle. This makes me wonder if there was a switch in how citizens see and want to see their leaders. Perhaps leaders used to be “all powerful” and more commanding, but now the type of leader that people want is someone that they can relate to and feel on a human level, instead of feeling like they are above everyone. I personally feel that a leader that is less of a god like figure and more of a regular person with authoritative qualities is someone I would vote for and feel comfortable with. 

4 Comments

After reading the chapter “A Kind of Revolution” in our text, I felt like I had just read the transcript for one of John Green’s Crash Course history videos. Although a little overwhelmed with all the information, I now feel like I have a good base of the background history of the US during the later 1700s, even though I did take AP US History junior year and it was giving me not-so friendly flashbacks. Although much of the information I had learned about before, I felt like the facts were not just facts, but part of a story due to the conversational tone of the writing, which I really enjoyed.

One part that really stood out to me from this chapter was when it was highlighting how the Revolution started to create a space for blacks to start making demands of white society, and the author includes a excerpt from Benjamin Banneker who was appointed to plan the new city of Washington. I thought his phrase, “…One universal Father hath given being to us all; and that he hath not only made us all one flesh, but that he hath also, without partiality, afforded us all the same sensations and endowed us all with the same facilities…” was extremely powerful and was definitely a big stepping stone in gaining rights for the blacks (89).

I also found many of the statistical information astonishing. I could not believe during the Revolutionary period, 1/3 of the population were small farmers, while only 3% of the population had large holdings and could be considered wealthy. In addition, the fact that in Maryland to run for governor one had to own 5,000 pounds of property, or 1,000 pounds for senator, which excluded 90% of the population from office. I always knew about the large gap between the elite holding all the cards and everyone else in society, but I don’t think I ever realized how far the gap widened and just how much the wealthy did control, with so little people.

2 Comments

I am always fascinated by the way Zinn portrays the founding of our country, but i understand why he does so. This chapter focused a lot on the constitution and Zinn’s views of it. He viewed it as an oppressive device that has the sole focus of protecting white, Christian males. While this is a very understandable conclusion given the fact that those are the types of people that created the document; I personally believe that his claim is very far fetched. The document was written to preserve and protect the rights of American citizens, so to answer the question being asked in the chapter that focuses on who the laws apply to, it is Americans. The American people are protected by the constitution and are frankly the most free people on the planet, so I believe Zinn’s opinion is extreme, but i respect it.

There is also a focus on the creation of myths, which reflects the podcast content, and that is what i find most interesting about the reading. I have never heard about all of the lies that are the foundations of our country, but frankly i do not care. I believe that historians and politicians create these myths for a reason; and while there are people who will distrust the history and foundation that our country claims, I believe that the myth creators did what they saw fit to create the worlds greatest country, and they did a good job. I find it incredibly interesting to examine and identify what is true and what is fake just to have the information, but I don’t feel as that it makes a difference in the way i feel about America. I would be curious though to know what Zinn would propose in education reform because he is incredibly adiment about exposing these false narratives that are the pinnacle of our history.

Leave a Comment

I was surprised by how much I learned from the third chapter of the book ”Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” which talks about how servants were deprived of their freedom, united with black slaves and indigenous people to rebel against the early English colonies in America. The way servants were treated fascinated me, how brutal and inhumane the American system was who promised them a different reality. Only the minority of the upper class were able to achieve freedom and wealth while the majority of people (women, slaves, natives, and the poor whites) were deprived of their rights, seen as just a labor force, and were just a tool for the government and the rich to benefit from. 

Knowing that this was the way American society came to existence, it does not surprise me now to see all the racial acts and violence in the country that happen nowadays. The system from the very start deprived servants from their rights made them a property; they even needed to get permission to get married and have kids and much more. This for me is just another form of slavery. Zinn mentioned that” Beatings and whippings were common. Servant women were raped…Servants could not marry without permission, could be separated from their families, could be whipped for various offenses”. These rich white people consider themselves better than the indigenous and people of color and were discriminating against them throughout that time. This kind of treatment led to Bacon’s Rebellion against the colonial government and the racist acts of the powerful rich people. “Violence had escalated on the frontier before the rebellion. Some Doeg Indians took a few hogs to redress a debt, and whites, retrieving the hogs, murdered two Indians. The Doegs then sent out a war party to kill a white herdsman, after which a white militia company killed twenty-four Indians”. This sparked fear for the rich minority who wanted to maintain their status. As a result, the controlling minority created a division and separated black slaves, the Indians ( indigenous people), and poor white people. Thus, they benefited from the rebellion using racism and classism.  

Class still plays a role in the American system to this day. It intersects with the race so that white rich people feed on the black poor minority and make them poorer. After BLM riots sparked in the county, white rich people used the strategy of addressing the issues of the lower class while still being in power.

4 Comments

To me, this chapter again highlighted a common theme we have seen throughout Pre-revolutionary America: those with immense power or those with referent power will consistently manipulate those in poverty with the expectation of possible power in attempts to control and distract. There were many different examples of this in this PHUS’s Chapter, Persons of Mean and Vile Condition, but I think the most striking one for me was Bacon’s Rebellion as it was the one I knew most about. Before reading this I honestly had a positive view of Nathaniel Bacon because I saw Bacon’s Rebellion as one of the first movements against over-taxation before revolution. Even though it had a bloody ending, with many killed and 23 hung, I thought it was rooted with a good motive. Realizing that this movement, that was facilitated to both control and kill Native Americans and suppress the poor, was named after someone who had substantial government power (meaning he was not just a regular farmer) and enthusiastically wanted to kill Native Americans again forced me to re-evaluate how I examine history. Those that joined, including real impoverished people, slaves, and indentured servants, were ripped of an opportunity to make real change because they were deceived by someone with power. This reminded me of what is happening currently where many people join or contribute to a movement with an initial positive idea, but then have their contributions manipulated by those in charge for a “larger purpose”, usually unknown to those who participated. This I think speaks volumes about the structure of American society (or about humans themselves) if the same type of behavior can be seen 400 years later. 

 

I have, and honestly will continue to see, America as the land of the best opportunity to progress and allows for the most social mobility, but a quote from page 50 really stuck with me in terms of the foundation of our current society. “The country therefore was not ‘born free’ but born slave and free, servant and master, tenant and landlord, poor and rich.” These relationships founded in extreme power dynamics and fear are the basis for our country today, which I think transcends the idea that America was founded by those who were free. Those in power feared the intersection of disparity, which I think is something that is still feared in modern politics but obviously with less of a direct and more intertwined connection. No one was free at the time unless they had money, which is a concept that resonates with many today.

5 Comments

In A People’s History of the United States, Zinn talks about the social divide in the chapter titled “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition”. The divide was too one-sided that it made the wealthy fear of being outnumbered by the slaves, Indians, and white lower class, so the wealthy and legislators created a bigger divide between whites and blacks so that there would be more balance. This was the time when the majority of the social divide came from the color of a persons skin instead of socio-economic value.

Again, another chapter in one of Zinn’s makes me rethink what I already know about history. I always was under the impression that slavery in the United States and racism came hand and hand right from the beginning, but apparently, racism came a bit after. We read earlier about how slavery came from a time of low income and a necessity of cheap labor, but I thought that with that came what we know today to be racism. I never was taught about a rebellion that gave more power to the whites so that the balance could be maintained for the wealthy. This is why the majority of the middle class was white. It was to keep a divide from the black and Indian people and it was a way for the wealthy elite to keep their power.

 

7 Comments

Jamestown was founded on an ideology of classism along with racism. It’s disheartening to know that the first English settlement was a pretense to what was to come before even getting settled in. The new settlers not only thought they were better than the Indians but, they were also just racist as well.  Bacon’s Rebellion was not only just about being oppressed, “That might explain the character of their rebellion, not easily classifiable as either antiaristocrat or anti-Indian, because it was both.” This is another example of History telling lies, when learning about Bacon’s Rebellion, I remember learning about the struggle of the farmers. That they were just standing up to the rich and powerful of Jamestown. However, Zinn explains how not only was Bacon’s Rebellion about standing up to the rich and powerful, but also just plain racism.

Furthermore, violence had escalated prior to Bacon’s Rebellion. It was just plain racism, “Violence had escalated on the frontier before the rebellion. Some Doeg Indians took a few hogs to redress a debt, and whited, retrieving the hogs murdered two Indians.” This caused a spree of skirmishes among the Indians and the settlers. While the Indians just wanted to protect themselves and their land, the settlers were racist and wanted to annex the Indians land. This led to a war, “But proposed to exempt those Indians who cooperated.” Out of racism and poverty, “This seemed to anger the tierspeople, who wanted total war but also resented the high taxes assessed to pay for the war.” The Jamestown Settlement was completely racist, and just out of spite. Instead of being peaceful they killed and tried to annex their land.

5 Comments

In Zinn’s “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” chapter, he argues that one of the main priorities of the colonial elites’ was to divide the persecuted people of North America, specifically between racial lines, so they could maintain their power in society and prevent rebellions. This division was created through laws such as forbidding interracial marriages and preventing blacks from traveling into Indian territory.  It still baffles me that the colonial legislature could create such racially motivated laws during this time period. I am thankful that no laws exist with such explicit racism within them today, but I cannot say our government is completely free of these underlying racist motives that divide society. 

In Zinn’s “Tyranny is Tyranny” chapter, he brings in a new idea of how the colonial elite managed to hold such immense power over all other classes. In order to truly assert power, the elite had to gain the working-class’ loyalty. This weapon of power became the “rhetoric of freedom” that Zinn deems “the most effective system of national control devised in modern times”. According to Zinn, the elite managed to focus the anger of the working-class towards the British instead of at the rich to keep the power dynamic undisturbed. The Declaration of Independence was a tool for this,  with the phrase “all men are created equal” blurring out any distinctions between the rich and poor. 

Reading these chapters honestly makes me question the intentions of any ruling body now. I have never been taught the hidden flaws within the American Revolution until coming to Richmond. A class I took freshmen year, Slavery and Freedom, highlighted that the Revolution was quite hypocritical in that Americans were vouching for freedom while still possessing slaves. Now I hear the argument that the Revolution was an attempt for colonial elites to maintain their power by pinning the anger from the working-class against the British. I am sure there are many critiques of the American Revolution and other glorified moments of American history, and I am glad I am finally learning about them. Despite scholars formulating arguments of the true intentions of America’s leaders, how will we ever truly know their motivations if it is all in the past and there is no historical document that clearly states it?

6 Comments

“It was a complex chain of oppression in Virginia,” (Zinn, 42). Zinn makes this declaration while explaining Bacon’s Rebellion, which is often considered to be the first armed insurgence led by American colonists against the British. Nathaniel Bacon (who is not related to Kevin Bacon) and his followers were angered by the government’s lackluster response to skirmishes with Native Americans. The “chain” that Zinn speaks of refers to how the Native Americans were oppressed by the settlers moving westward (ie. Bacon and his followers), who were being oppressed by the government of Virginia. Everyone, however, was being oppressed by England and its love of tobacco and trade-control. 

 

This idea of a chain of oppression is not new. We see it with the story of Christoper Columbus (the Native Americans were oppressed by Columbus’ sailors/colonizers and everyone was oppressed by Columbus), slavery (slaves were oppressed by just about everyone, and there were probably workers in between the slaves and the plantation owners that were oppressed), etc. You see it today, of course, all around the world. It’s a similar concept to that of a bully. The bully picks on the weak kid that can’t stand up for themself, but, outside of school, the bully could be picked on by another bully. However, just because you don’t always know what the aggressor is going through does not excuse mean or violent behavior. This apparently hasn’t entirely clicked for the human race.

 

Oppression has historically proved to be a bad idea. You bully your colonies? They start a war to get away from you. You force people into slavery and later regulate them based on their skin color? You get a Civil Rights Act passed and a lot of protesting for more change in the decades that follow. You invade other countries even though you were told not to? You lose two world wars. 

 

Oppression will never go away. There will always be a Bacon who oppresses because they themselves are oppressed. One can hope, however, that it can evolve into something a little more humane, and a lot less harmful.

5 Comments

“Through all that growth, the upper class was getting most of the benefits and monopolized political power. A historian who studied Boston tax lists in 1687 and 1771 found that in 1687 there were, out of a population of six thousand, about one thousand property owners. and that the top 5 percent- 1 percent of the population- consisted of fifty who rich individuals who had 25 percent of the wealth. By 1770, the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44 percent of the wealth” p.49

“The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% of the Country, Study Finds” Forbes 2017

Throughout this chapter, it becomes clear that much of the racism present in America during the 1600 and 1700s  spawned from white poverty/desperation that the upper class exploited as a means to guarantee their own wealth and power. The book clearly lays out evidence that racial hatred is not a naturally occurring phenomenon in humans so it must be developed through life experience. All throughout history those who have the money have the influence and ability to shape society to whatever suits their needs best. At the time it was in the upper classes’ interest to prevent white poor Americans from teaming up with black slaves to remove them from power. The book also mentions how it was in rich people’s interest to create a barrier between their property and the indigenous people and their means of doing so was by placing less wealthy white people there to act as a barrier. I became angry reading the chapter at the thought of rich people throwing their money around to manipulate society to their gain in a way that destroys the livelihood of so many people. Not only did they dehumanize an entire population of people based solely on their race, manipulate politics/politicians to secure there place in society, and allow the whole lower section of society to starve and go cold in winter, but they then proceeded to hoodwink that entire underprivileged section of society into believing they could move up in society and were not at the bottom of the totem pole through the exploitation of black and indigenous people.

The reasons I include the Forbes quote above is that it is eerily similar to the quote from the book despite the fact that they are speaking about time periods well over 200 years apart. My anger carries over to modern day. This is a textbook example of historical fallout and demonstrates that it is easy to see the faults of societies of the past, but more difficult to recognize the significance of modern day issues. Rich exploitation of the lower class and politics permeates history and still exists in our current period. After all, Americans today still go hungry and freeze during the winter, despite the fact that there are also Americans(Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett) who have more wealth than they could ever possibly spend in one lifetime. One of the greatest moral flaws of our nation is that we allow for both of these social classes to exist in the name of capitalism. The majority of Americans do not seem to understand how little the system has changed over the years and how much they are being kept in the dark on these issues. The American Dream hoodwinks people into accepting the system with the belief that they could someday, through hard work, be apart of the exploiting group of society when it is highly unlikely. Even worse, the same minority groups of the past who paid the price for the economic gap, still suffer the consequences today.  How do you think people will write about the modern economic disparity in 200 years? I personally don’t think it will be viewed in a high regard.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#277076913cf8

5 Comments

In class on Monday, we entered a debate about how social media might shape our world into either a more egalitarian utopia or will continue to exacerbate the problems of our modern society. Reading through Chapters 3 and 4 of Howard Zinn’s history, I believe that American colonial society offers us an idea as to how we will shape the internet in the future. Like the internet, many Europeans viewed the “new” world as a chance to create a new society, free from the constraints of European norms. Indeed, the vastness of the continents lended itself nicely to this idea given the frequent fighting over land in Europe. For some, the new world offered a chance to create a society free of the extreme classism of Europe. Indeed, the new world originally did not have serfs or feudal lords; however, the system of indentured servitude, and eventually slavery, ended any hopes of a new, utopian society. The system did not offer servants any real, statistical chance of joining the land owning upper class. Instead, indentured servitude was designed to increase the wealth of already wealthy Europeans who had been sold land in America before others were given a chance. When these wealthy landowners mistreated their servants, justice was rarely served. Instead, the British government set up the House of Burgesses to arbitrate contract disputes between servants and landowners. Since the House was designed in Europe, many European qualities stained the institution. Likewise, when internet algorithms were designed to police the internet, many real, human stains were left in the programming. Thus, as it is impossible for an algorithm to go against its code, it became impossible for the House of Burgesses to promote equality in the new world. Instead, the first democratically elected body in America was designed to encourage class division.

 

Another interesting point from the reading was how the founding fathers, all of which were landowning elite, were able to divert the anger of the white lower class away from themselves and towards the English, dodging a cross-racial, class revolution in the process. For many poor white workers in colonial America, it was difficult to associate with the rich landowners like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In fact, many despised the founding fathers more than the English. Thus, a logical step towards overthrowing the system of oppression in the new world would have been to join forces with enslaved African Americans and overthrow the elite. However, through unfair legal treatment and impassioned speeches (ie Patrick Henry), the founding fathers were able to unite white Americans against the British at the expense of African American slaves and indigenous communities. When reflecting on this today, we cannot ignore the fact that racism was a tactic used to garner support for the American revolution, deeply embedding it into our country’s political philosophy, in addition to our economics.

3 Comments

In these two chapters of Peoples History of the United States, Zinn discusses a growing gap between the rich and poor as well as a racial division. In 1676, Bacons rebellion occurred. It began over a conflict of how to deal with the Indians on the western frontier and included violence, Indian raids, extreme poverty. The Indians fought white settlers as a way to defend their land. The white settlers were angry with the wealthy land-owners for raising taxes and making them leave. In Zinn’s chapter, persons of mean and vile condition, the quote that stuck out to me most was, “Better to make war on the Indian, gain the support of the white, divert possible class conflict by turning poor whites against Indians for the security of the elite” (54). And this is exactly what Bacon’s rebellion did. The part that really strikes me is when he says “protecting the elite” because it shows that this class divide was wanted and they didn’t care that they were creating violence between the Indians and poor white people. While some servants eventually became free, it was rare and Abbot Smith says this was a system, “dominated by men who had money enough to make others work for them” (46). This created a lasting and stronger divide in classes. 

In Zinn’s next chapter, Tyranny is Tyranny, he discusses the American Revolution and how it was actually “a work of genius.” He talks about how people in the English colonies discovered by uniting themselves as the United States, they could gain land and political power from the British colonies. analyzes the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. Zinn says that the declaration is to secure life, liberty and happiness. By saying this, it lets people be hopeful for the idea that maybe they will work their way up the class system, when in reality Zinn tells us of the majority of servants who never made it up, no matter how hard they worked. We see this in Zinn’s examples as well as today in our current society. Zinn later says, “how could people truly have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?” (73). Both this question, and the title of the chapter, tyranny is tyranny go hand in hand to me. We talked about this in an earlier class, but people of power and wealth want to keep it, and whether they don’t want this to change. Whether they like being the people in power or don’t realize the harmful patterns created, nothing is as equal as promised.

4 Comments

I found the chapter titled, “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” very interesting and very relevant to a point brought up in class on Monday. The chapter highlights the life of a servant and the lack of freedom they have that is, in theory “promised” to them. In class, the idea of the American dream was brought up. And shortly after the debunking of this theory, categorizing the American dream as bullshit. Zinn states that the large underclass of poor whites was made up of people who came to North America because their European home was eager to get rid of them. These people were brought over mostly as servants, to be sold, like slaves, for 5 or 7 year contracts. Upon arrival they were struck with the harsh reality that the colonies were nothing like what they were promised or for that matter, imagined.

While some servants made it out and somehow succeeded in owning land and following out their dream to a certain extent, many died or killed themselves due to the harsh conditions they faced everyday. My question then, is more broad…what really is the American dream and how has it shifted in meaning now in 2020? Is the American dream a real concept or just something made up by the English to rid their lands of these people they did not want? In addition to this, was Bacon’s Rebellion in vain and what did he do to shape the colonies and the lives of the frontiersmen?

Furthermore I find the persistent economic theme throughout both chapters very relevant today. Zinn mentions the idea of “levelling,” which was a call to equalize the wealth of the colonies. This is directly applicable in the United States now, almost 400 years later, as we face a large disparity in wealth distribution. In many ways the colonies, our past, directly relate to the future. While it may not seem like it, we are a lot more similar to our harsh, exclusive past than we would like to accept.

4 Comments

While reading this chapter, I kept thinking about the world today, and the similarities between completely different ages. The divide between the colonists, and the blacks, and the Indians was great, and although most of it may be for different reasons, the United States today is often very divided. In the 1600s and 1700s there was a major gap between the rich and poor whites and “by 1770, the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44% of the wealth”, now it’s around 38%. The difference is close to nothing. Zinn mentions how there was this wealth disparity, which created a lot of violent conflicts, riots, and rebellions. 

 

Along with this wealth gap, there was a major gap between races, and although today the gap is shown in a different way, it is still there. The divide between people in the Americas in the early 1700s came from the system of servant/slave and master relationships, and it was kept that way because of the wealthy classes’ fear of the servant/slave revolts. Today, a lot of the divide in the nation is not only the wealth gap, but political, and we still see riots, for example in the BLM movement. While the way things are handled and the extent to which the divide shows are very different than they were 300 years ago, the basic roots of this division within the country remains in some ways the same. 

5 Comments

 

Money is the root of all evil.  In the chapters “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” and “Tyranny is Tyranny,”  I feel that economic issues ultimately started the many atrocities of this time period.  Indentured servitude ultimately stemmed from the rich getting richer, and the gap between the rich and poor grew drastically.  After reading these chapters I would argue that America’s horrible past can be attributed primarily to the American Elite. The American Elite did so much to try to tarnish the relationship between the poor whites and the black and the indigenous people. The American Elite set laws into place that prevented interracial sex and prohibited white business owners from hiring black people for skilled labor.  The American Revolution seems to have been a way for the American Elite to avoid a rebellion and keep their economic status.

 

Economic divide has always been a problem in America.  I believe the indentured servitude has connections to the economic system in America today.  Minimum wage is sub eight dollars in many states including my home state of Pennsylvania.  This is not a wage that can support a person in America, let alone a family of five.  We can see how wrong it was to have indentured servants, yet people work twelve hours a day at a minimum wage job, and they can barely support themselves.  Times have obviously changed greatly, and a minimum wage worker still has life way better off than an indentured servant, but the premise of the argument still stands.  There is so much to be learned from the development of early America, and I feel like more can be done to increase the standard of living for all people.

4 Comments

There were a lot of significant takeaways, in my opinion, from Chapters 3 and 4 of Zinn’s book that definitely needs to be discussed more often and made a part of public knowledge or education. When I first read about the horrible injustices like rape, domestic violence, and other crimes that were committed by rich white males that were ultimately swept under the rug and ignored by the governing bodies (which were also made up of rich white males) I was disgusted but not shocked. It, unfortunately, reminded me of the current justice system and the rapes by white men like Brock Turner which aren’t rightfully punished. It was disheartening to see that this trend is embedded in our history and that it is still being repeated today.

Secondly, I am a very big fan of the Broadway production Hamilton and I used to take away from it, and US history in general, a story about the classic American dream and the victorious and honorable American Revolution. However, now I honestly see the American dream as a façade and a ploy by rich white males to maintain their power. Europeans were fleeing their home countries for a better life the American way, and from the beginning of time, that was all a lie. It makes me wonder why the American dream even became something that was strived for when in reality the US was always a place of division. Another key component of the American dream is that there is a chance for class mobility and that anyone can succeed and improve their living situations. However, I honestly don’t know how this came to be because the wealth disparity was so fixed that the wealthiest people didn’t want anyone else to rise to power and the middle class didn’t even bother trying to fight back; they were just happy that they weren’t the lower class. There was no unity before, during, or after the American revolution. There were no “us” or “our people” or common “man” that was equal as stated in the Constitution; these were all fake linguistic tools that were deployed by the wealthy out of fear of rebellion.

Further, the persistence of the top 1% of people to enforce racism in the lower classes was so intensive it makes me question why people ever thought that African Americans were naturally and innately inferior. The interracial relations were everywhere throughout history, yet the narrative of the minority, which was the white men with property, somehow prevailed and created consequences that are still unfolding today. It’s honestly perplexing to me how racism developed, yet I do understand the manipulation by leaders to end the phenomenon between white and black servants (and Native Americans as well) that can be described by the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

3 Comments

While reading chapters 3 and 4 of Zinn’s, Peoples History of the United States I was fascinated by what I learned that I had no previous knowledge of. I had no idea of the extent of the extremely corrupt foundation of America. The descriptions of life for white servants in the early days of colonial America horrified and surprised me. One quote that struck out to me was, “The country therefore was not born free but born slave and free” (50). The majority of the freedom and wealth was secured by the small upperclass. This upperclass completely controlled the government/wealth and therefore the rest of the people in the society. I was surprised by the way these servants were treated. Their treatment was very similar to the treatment of black slaves. From the conditions on the boat to America, to the selling of servants, to the beatings/whippings, laws against servant marriage without permission, rape of the women, harsh working conditions, etc. This all shocked me. This horrible system of oppression and violence has been ingrained in and apart of our society since the beginning. I had no idea how deep this kind of behavior in society ran. It took numerous rebellions/riots like Bacon’s Rebellion to begin to change this system (however only in favor for whites).

I never knew that after their indentured servitude most servants were never able to re join society in the way I previously thought they were, “80% who were…hopeless…died during their servitude, returned to France/England, or became poor whites” (47). As a result of this growing lower class, “Poverty and Discontent appear in every Face (except the Countenances of the Rich) and dwell upon every Tongue” (52). The wealthy of course desired to keep their position of power and were terrified of uprising. So they used this power to create laws to separate the poor white, the black slaves, and the native Americans. Racism grew and was becoming practical due to this fear of rebellion from the minority groups. The wealthy used racism/classisim as a way to control these groups for their own monetary/political gain. The conditions in Colonial America for everyone expect the extremely wealthy white landowning men were atrocious. “The colonies were societies of contending classes” (50). I had no idea that the gap between the minority elite rich and the poor lasted for a significantly long time in colonial America.

This reading left me with some questions. I wonder why the servants, black slaves, and native Americans didn’t come together in more of a significant way? Especially since the ruling class was the minority. I also wonder how what Englands role was (if they had any) in maintaining the racial/class divide? As well as maintaining the wealth for the elite few? I find myself asking this after every reading we do but why have I not learned more about life in colonial America-very specifically the political, racial, and class divides?

2 Comments

Today’s first reading showed me exactly how rich whites in early America gradually turned a new land with potential for equality and prosperity into a land of continued oppression and systematic inequality. In my mind, it all begins with the need basic need to survive. Zinn describes the hardships that early settlers faced in terms of lack of food as he quotes Wilcomb Washburn on page 40, “there was genuine distress, and genuine poverty”. He continues to describe a “dry summer” that ruined the corn crop, leaving a lack of food, and destroyed the tobacco exports, leaving a lack of money. However, a small percentage of wealthy white businessmen and land owners were able to keep their head above water and survive more easily than the rest. This inequality would only grow, and eventually be used as a weapon by the wealthy elite to further their own agenda. As times in the colonies progressed, it got better for a few, and worse for many others. Zinn writes that in 1770, 1% of people owned 44% of the wealth of the country. A key point to remember here is that only landowners could vote. Therefore, as financial inequality progressed, the ability to vote and have a say in this new society became less available. At this time, poor whites were struggling, native Americans were struggling and victim to oppression, and imported African Americans were also persecuted. 

At this point I began to think: “Why don’t the poor whites, native americans, and blacks join forces to push against the white elite?”. The more I read, I realized the answer to this stems back to biological human needs. Native Americans and blacks were kept at a distance from wealthy whites. However, poor whites were able to intermingle with both the rich whites as well as the Native Americans and the blacks. While native Americans and blacks had a population large enough for the poor whites to join and potentially overthrow the rich white elite, the poor whites wanted food, security, and community with the rich white elite. The white elite understood the potential for a revolt from poor whites, natives, and blacks, as Abbot Smith says, “it is a lively fear that the servants would join with Negroes or Indians to overcome the small number of masters” (pg. 53). However, rich whites used “concessions” (pg. 57) to the middle class, using them as a “buffer” pg. 54 to continue westward expansion. This Zinn describes this concession as the upper class using promises of “liberty” and “equality” that got their attention enough to push for a revolution against England, but not for the liberty and equality of those building the country, natives and blacks. 

This chapter especially made me want to ask the question: “What if?” so many different times. What if the dry summer hadn’t caused such struggle and inequality, and the wealthy elite weren’t able to control the actions of the poor? What if poor whites would have joined forces with natives and blacks, rather than furthering the agenda of the wealthy elite? Would we have had to go through the systematic racial inequality in America if they had?

1 Comment

Zinn’s chapters “Persons of Mean and Vile Condition” and “Tyranny is Tyranny” discuss the growing class and racial divide between Americans. White settlers contributed to this class divide by not only treating people of color as inferior but also pinning minorities against each other. Something that really stood out to me was that black slaves were used to fight the Native Americans. The same idea discussed earlier that white Americans thought black slaves were easier to control is also portrayed in these chapters. Zinn mentioned that Native Americans rebelled more than black slaves, so settlers started to enslave black people more than the Native Americans. However, as the number of black slaves increased, so did the likelihood for the slaves to rebel. I think that the dichotomies that Zinn mentions are really important to recognize. He speaks of the contrast between slavery and freedom, servant and master, tenant and a landlord and finally the difference between the poor and rich. This inequity and class division seems to be what lead to the growing gap between classes.

The “Tyranny is Tyranny” chapter also discussed these class differences but more in the sense of financial differences rather than racial. However, these two ideas seem to go hand in hand, especially during the time of increased slavery and the establishment of the country. Zinn mentioned how Edmund Morgan sees racism as being more of a class issue than a race issue because both issues are related to one another. Generally the upper class would receive more benefits and monopolize the political power while the poorer people were struggling to fulfill their basic human needs. This brought about the issue of whether we should take some wealth from the richer people in order to prevent one group of people from being financially and politically elite. However, when you think about the people who are making laws and signing legislation, these are all white and wealthy men. Thus Zinn states that Indians, black slaves and women were all left out of the Constitution because they were “politically invisible” in comparison to the white wealthy men that ruled the nation.

2 Comments