Author: Kathrine Yeaw

In this chapter of Zinn, I was left with a pretty negative feeling about our history. Zinn describes the horrors of our history that he has highlighted throughout the book. He mentions the divide in the country between all peoples. He says “one percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth” (623). This staggering data is not only shocking but saddening. Thinking about how this one percent of the US population has run the country for so long, controlling every narrative and painting a picture of the US, when that is not the reality is disturbing. Zinn also mentions how the elites’ attempt to create a perfect America has never worked, as we see through every event in history when there has always been a group of people greatly suppressed. The better part of the US is how there has never been a time when The Establishment has been able to stop people from revolting, and voicing their protests. So much of our history is occupied by some kind of rebellion, which I believe is crucial to our advancement and continued effort in more equality. The government and the top elites hold so much power, but we’ve seen through history that their methods don’t always work and the other 99 percent also need to keep trying to rebel when necessary.

Zinn’s description of how to create a kind of America opposite from our history, a perfect world, a utopia of sorts, seems  nearly impossible with the way we have seen history play out. Creating a society in which all had equal power, without a centralized bureaucracy, and nonviolent culture seems like something to never happen. While this is certainly an ideal, it may take a very long time for a world like that to be created. But, it would be interesting to see how many people would actually want a world like that. The top one percent may want to stay the most powerful, at the expense of others. I think it’s important to keep trying to unify the country more, although it’s something that could take a long time and may still not be perfect.

3 Comments

Zinn’s chapter on the 2000 election and the war on terrorism was eye opening once again on the horrors of our government system and terrorism. My first surprise was how Bush was elected. It’s clear that Bush only won because of his advantage in the system. He had powerful people rooting for him that made it possible for him to win the Presidency. After the bombing of the World Trade Center, the fright of terrorism was high among Americans and it seems the response taken by the President to bomb Afganistan came out of that fear. This was just another instance in which the government acted almost too harshly, similar to Ford’s bombing of Cambodia. Although, the American citizens at home were much more aware of the cruel nature of things. I always thought the mentality among Americans after 9/11 was revenge, but the way Zinn puts it, that does not seem to be true. Many people disagreed with Bush, “urging that he not match violence with violence” (681). The view of the people was once again not in line with the government. The basis of democracy lies in the hand of the people, but with what we see in history, it seems as though the way the US has been run, it is often not so much of a democracy. 

Meanwhile, The Intercept article by Meriam Elba highlights how Islamophobia has been around long before 9/11. The article was very informative and I gained a better understanding of the origins of Islamophobia and how it’s still very apparent in the world today. Something that surprised me was the conversation about black Muslims and how they are rarely represented in the media. I didn’t realize black Muslims make up a quarter of the Muslim population, and it’s obvious there is a reason for that. The media and language used by them and the government has put an image in our minds of what a Muslim is supposed to look and act like. This framework has created this Islamophobia feeling amongst American people, which needs to be broken down. I also found it interesting how Elba talks about Trump’s role in Islamophobia, and the direct correlation he plays to the apparent spread of it. His very campaign of “Make America Great Again” focuses on white supremacy, which is the complete opposite of what the nation as a whole should be doing, when trying to dismantle racism. When the country is being told by the leaders of the country and the press certain things about groups of people, their ability to be persuaded is increasingly high. This shows how the citizens, the people, need to be the ones to say something, as Zinn’s chapter showed before, democracy relies on the people, not the government.

3 Comments

This chapter in Zinn highlights the chaotic nature of the United States government at times. The seventies was a time when we were trying to get control of ourselves, although we weren’t always successful. After the turmoil of the sixties, the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal the Americans trust in the government was not really there. As Zinn states a survey showed that “more than 83 percent agreed” that “‘the people running this country (government, political, church and civic leaders) don’t tell [them] the truth” (550). This anti-government sentiment around the US led leaders to perform some horrific acts as a way to regain control and their trust, as well as prove to the rest of the world that we were still powerful, especially after we lost the war. 

The Mayaguez affair was shocking to me. The US government seemed to act a bit out of control in this instance, only in an effort to seem powerful to the rest of the world. The casualties that resulted from this incident were saddening, especially because the government acted in a way that was supposed to help the country, but only did more harm. This feeling of the US needing to assert authority everywhere in the world throughout leaders in the country created a system that hurt the citizens at home. The American people still had low hopes for the future, as the economy was doing worse, their confidence in the government was decreasing. 

The seventies highlights once again the separation between the powerful leaders in the country and the actual citizens. Although, each seemed to feel as though things were out of control. It’s interesting to see how the government wanted to fix many of the same problems the American people did, but the way they wanted to handle it was very different. They were more focused on their global influence and the way the country looked, and the citizens didn’t seem to care about the rest of the world. But, then it brings in the question of what is more important, what should we be focusing on?

2 Comments

This reading was yet another example of the separation between the US government and the people, and the secrets and lies between them. In contrast to WWII, just before the Vietnam War, the Vietnam War was one of the most hated in all of history. Learning about the Vietnam War I had always been confused. I was mainly confused as to why we were at war, what we were fighting for and what was the reasoning, or why it went on for so long. After reading this chapter, it’s obvious many US citizens felt the same way during the war as well, which is why there was such a big antiwar movement. It makes it even more understandable when the government says it was to expel communism and keep freedom, but the actions of the government were far too violent and simply saying we wanted freedom for the Vietnamese and to expel communism was not enough.

Much of my surprise in this chapter came from the way the government handled the situation at home during the war. These massive anti war movements and protests were obvious and the heightened problem after the beginning of the civil rights movement created major divides in the country. I was surprised by how the government never really acknowledged the people’s opposition and only became more involved in the war. When Nixon was elected on the terms that he would get the US out of the Vietnam War and then only took some troops out but continued with the war, or how Kennedy lied about the beginning of the war, and all other lies that came with the war seems to be the most common theme in all of Zinn’s reading. The way the government almost ignored the people at home, and let them commit violent acts, protests, and get arrested while staying in a war where they were supposedly fighting against communism and freedom seems counterproductive. It makes me question what the real values of the US government were at the time.

Learning about the problems at home during the Vietnam War make it seem as though they were more concerning than those in Vietnam with the soldiers. Although, the government seemed only to care about the amount of power and influence we had in Vietnam and how much we fought, in the most brutal way. It’s obvious that the majority of people in the US were more concerned with problems at home than abroad, which was opposite of those felt by our political leaders, which clearly caused many problems.

4 Comments

I found this chapter in Zinn’s reading to be one of the most interesting so far. I was surprised by the things Zinn focused on in the Civil Rights Movement, as well as the amount of similarities between the things happening in the 60s and right now during the BLM movement. The first sentence of the chapter describing how the black revolt came as a surprise to many is something interesting to think about. The idea that people, specifically whites, at this time were not focused on the racism that was so apparent, and many just lived in a bubble believing things were okay is something that I think is important to think about today as well. While many people after WWII were not focused on anti-racism movements, now, many people are simply ignorant of the fact that there are still many problems with racism in the world. While it’s obvious the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was very different from the BLM movement, I realized there are a lot more parallels between the two than I was expecting. Zinn mentions how “there was rioting in the streets, looting and firebombing of stores” (459), which we saw a lot earlier this year. Like this Civil Rights movement in the 60s, this movement seemed to be a wake up call for many, especially whites who were perhaps unaware of the reality of things in the country. 

The other thing I found interesting about this chapter was the way it highlighted Martin Luther King Jr. It’s nearly impossible to talk about the Civil Rights movement without talking about MLK, but Zinn’s focus on him was brief compared to other historical readings I’ve encountered, or been taught. It made me realize that I’ve always associated the Civil Rights movement with MLK, as though one didn’t exist without the other, but in reality the movement was in no way about MLK. In reality, MLK was definitely a major part of the movement, and many could argue made it what it was in the end, but the movement didn’t happen because of him, and there were other people that stepped up as much as he did during the time. 

This chapter definitely highlights things I had never thought about in the Civil War movement. The reality about what the government did and the effects it actually had, compared to what I have always learned, doesn’t come as much of a surprise now. I’ve noticed that after reading Zinns chapters I have become a lot more hesitant about believing everything I’ve learned in school about US history, and this chapter just makes it more clear.

5 Comments

While reading The Yellow Wallpaper, I felt a little disturbed. We are inside the narrator’s journal/diary she keeps hidden from her husband. She is described as having a sort of nervous depression, which her husband, John, who is a doctor, has pretty much diagnosed her with. John controls nearly everything in her life and by the end she said she began to feel scared of him. The extent to which he held power over her, because he was a “superior” because he was a physician and her husband, and simply a man, was just creepy, for lack of a better word. By the end, she became almost completely insane, having imaginations about the wallpaper. 

I found this idea about this control that men have over women in this time period to be interesting. This piece seems to be ahead of its time in this idea which it highlights so clearly. The narrator becomes almost insane because she is forced to assume she is like a child, she is patronized and misjudged by her husband, who in this time period was considered to be superior. This separation of roles in the household and society at the time creates a society where men have so much control over women, and the only thing they can control is their mind, as the narrator does. It’s disturbing to think about the extent to which the subordination of women and gender roles in society back then could affect women. It also makes me wonder how much better things really are today, not necessarily with gender, but in any sense of control. People need to be allowed to express themselves, and not be told they are wrong or don’t know, which happens often now, if not more.

5 Comments

The ideas in this chapter of The People’s History of the United States, one again talk about the class conflicts. The involvement of the US in the WWI was something that divided the nation more than united it. The efforts of the government, with newspapers and advertisements to unite the people created an even worse sense of community because of their extreme punishments for any opposition to the opinion of the government and the upper class. WWI was just another example of how much power the wealthy held, and how the lower classes suffered from it. The lower classes were the ones that were actually going to battle, when they didn’t even want to be in the war in the first place. The interesting part to me is how this percentage of people, these wealthy individuals, have such an effect on the country and the economic and political state of things, when the lower classes, the majority of the country hold no power.

In the opening paragraph of the chapter, Zinn mentions how in Europe, with the war “governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggles was stilled” (359). So then, why did it enhance almost all these problems in the United States? Class struggles got even worse, and socialism grew in an effort to stop the war. Only the economy seemed to get better, helping those wealthy. What surprised me even more is how the government handled this class conflict. The Espionage Act seems outrageous to me, for punishing someone so cruelly for voicing their opinion. There must have been a reason the government was so worried about people opposing the war. Zinn also mentions how even before we were involved in the war we were sending ships full of supplies and weapons to German enemies, which in itself makes us involved. Then how we lied about the Lusitania cargo adds to the idea that the government had an ulterior motive for their involvement in the war than the rest of the nation. 

This constant divide between the wealthy upper classes and the middle and lower classes has been evident all throughout history, although it seems to get worse and worse. During WWI it seemed to be much more political than it had been in the past, when most of the problems were race related. This recurring theme is still present today, although it seems that more and more people are gaining a voice and being heard, not just the wealthy class and government.

3 Comments

When reading Zinn’s chapter The Empire and the People, I was surprised by the amount of influence the wealthy and business men had on the government and America’s overseas expansion. The first sentence of the chapter, which quotes Theodore Roosevelt, that he “should welcome almost any war, for [he] thinks this country needs one” (297), already gives this idea that war and expansion is something powerful people wanted. I was shocked by this sentiment because I have always known war to be horrible and no one ever wants it, but I guess that wasn’t the case. The most influential and wealthy people in the nation were the ones supporting the Spanish-American war, even though they weren’t even going to be the ones fighting. 

The high opinion of the US, from Americans, that I have always been aware of is something, that I think, stems from the idea that we are the most powerful nation and have the most freedom. But, reading this chapter, makes me wonder why so many people have this high opinion of us, because even if we are very powerful and take control of these places, we are in no way giving people freedom, and we don’t help these nations, instead we were violent and brutal towards these places. The way we were so violent in the Philippines and massively racist not only there but in our own nation, does not call for anyone to have a high opinion of the US. There seems to have been many people who were against the war and what we were doing in Cuba and the Philippines, yet it seems our desire for power didn’t stop us. 

This chapter once again highlights what schools in the US don’t always teach us. They don’t teach the detailed parts that highlight the horrible things this nation did. We focus a lot on our own country and the things we did here with slavery, and racism, it seems more than our influence in other countries. It’s important to understand the impact America has had on the rest of the world and not become stuck in a bubble of how “great” we are.

Leave a Comment

The reading in A People’s History of the United States, I was less surprised as I have been in past chapters. The reason for this could be because I’ve learned a lot about Indian Removal and the horrible things that happened on both sides. While I say I’ve learned about it, one of the most important parts (if not the most important) of the Indian removal is the role of Andrew Jackson, which I didn’t really know about until senior year of high school. Before that, I only knew him as the president who passed the Indian Removal Act, which in itself is already horrible. But, learning about the truly inhuman things he did or thought was normal for these Indians was shocking. The main reason for this shock was because, as Zinn says, he was “a national hero”. He was someone that was respected, and he was someone people looked up to, yet he did some really horrible things. I know now most people disagree with Jackson’s actions and do not like him, but was it the same when he was living? Although, Zinn mentions how Northerners were opposed to Indian Removal, so clearly some realized the horrible things Jackson wanted. What surprised me was how the Northerners eventually stopped caring, preoccupied with their own issues. 

Just like most other chapters in this book, it does not put the US in a very positive light, or at least who were supposed to be the leaders and representatives of the country. This chapter made me realize once again that there are so many things to not be very proud of in our history. Although, it also reminds me of how important it is to stand up for what we believe in and fight back when we need to. It makes me think back to the last chapter about women, because my life is different today because of a few women who spoke up, when they knew something was wrong. For the Indians, there seems as though there was no right thing to do, except try to speak up. If they signed the treaties and agreed to leave, the treaties were broken or they died while leaving, and if they tried to fight back, they lost their land and once again died. In this story, the oppressed didn’t gain anything back, the same way women and slaves eventually did. Like Zinn says in the first sentence “Indians were the most foreign, the most exterior”, which was in part the reason for being pushed out, because as history shows, we fear and push out things/people that are different from us.

1 Comment

Both musicals, 1776 and Hamilton, present historical information in a very different, yet interesting way. It’s told in a story form that is supposed to be entertaining, with singing, and jokes, and personal stories to go along. Although, I found both to be just that, entertaining, the whole time I was questioning what was real and what was added on to make the story more interesting. In 1776, John Adams is shown to be very disliked, except by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, and had to fight to get the Declaration of Independence accepted by everyone. They show the character of each states’ delegate and even some of their wives. Was there really that big of a divide between the founding fathers? I had always believed they were always on the same page and worked together harmoniously, but this film shows otherwise. 

I also found it interesting the way many of the delegates were portrayed in 1776. Rhode Island drank the whole time, some just followed what others said, New York always abstain, and the others either stayed quiet or were bullies. They seemed childish. They were not the image that I always had in mind of the founding fathers. But again, it makes me question whether many were actually like that, or if it was exaggerated, or if they were even like that at all? Clearly there is some truth in the film though, and there must not have been a totally unanimous opinion on independence in the beginning. Something I didn’t know was that there was a whole passage about the cruelness of slavery that was eventually cut out. It’s interesting to see how this was the biggest divide in the nation for the longest time, even before we were actually a nation. 

Seeing these more comical and entertaining perspectives of history not only make history more interesting, but in some ways creates false ideas about what really happened. In this film, 1776, it’s clear the founding fathers are portrayed less united and divine as they were thought to be, and in reality that is probably more true.  There is bias in everything that is told, and the struggle is figuring out where the most truth is.

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

Each reading from Zinn, I am not only reminded of how cruel many of our so-called “heroes” or leaders were, but am made aware of the actual extent of how harsh they really were. Reading the horrible things the settlers and whites did to the African slaves was honestly astonishing. Zinn even mentions how Catholic priests found the sickening ways in which they captured, transported, and enslaved these people to be okay and they even “[bought] these slaves for [their] service without any scruple”. Throughout the years, this unfair treatment of slaves became even more acceptable and in some instances encouraged. Laws were passed in Maryland allowing for “cutting off the ears of blacks who struck whites, and that for certain serious crimes, [they could] be hanged and the body quartered and exposed”. It’s hard for me to understand how that is how they handled things. Their first option was always violence, which now we are taught from the moment we are born is the last option. 

The second thing this reading made me realize is that a lot of the reason for this “color line” that was created was out of fear and need for wealth and superiority; settlers’ fears of starvation, fear of being poor, and fear of rebellion. The main reason settlers began shipping in African slaves was because they were afraid of the Indians, and they knew they couldn’t get them to do what they wanted. Once they realized they could make money off of slaves, they began shipping in more, and using them for profit. The beginnings of the modern Western civilization, that is known to be because of whites, is really based on the foundation of the slaves’ work. One thing that really surprised me is how the separation between black and white became much more apparent when there was this “class fear” that the poor whites would rebel with the slaves, which was even more threatening than the slaves rebelling. Because of this fear they simply proclaimed that “all white men were superior to black” and went on to give them food and land when they were freed. This chapter really opened my eye as to how un-“natural” this divide was and how it was created through the ambitions of the whites at the time.

3 Comments

Before reading “Why History Matters” I was already aware of the fact that it is, and needed no convincing. I knew history is important, but I knew it for mainly one reason; learning about our history helps us to learn from our mistakes/successes in order to go forward into the future. While reading this article I realized not only that there are people who still believe History doesn’t matter, or simply wonder why it does matter at all. 

Cornfield brings up the idea that History allows us to explore new topics without having to learn everything new again. She says about how “the human mind can and does explore much wider terrain than does the human body”. Not only does History allow people to have so much more information then what is put right in front of them, but it gives them a framework to understand and make sense of the information. I found this interesting because Cornfield highlights how it is the job of educationalists to have students analyze a subject fully by understanding the history of a topic and the ways it may have changed or been challenged. The idea that History is much more than past events that helps us learn, but how we can learn from how we are living in it now is important to realize moving forward. 

3 Comments